What I am saying

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then there is the infamous Phineas Gage event (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1903).

Beyond the emotional aspect of morality, however, is a decision-making ability crucial to prosocial behavior. This points to a frontal lobe involvement. Indeed, the most famous case of antisocial behavior is that of Phineas Gage, a 19th-century railroad foreman who suffered severe frontal lobe damage as a result of physical trauma. An explosion caused a 3.5-foot iron rod to pass through the left ventromedial region of Gage's frontal lobe (6). As a result, the once social and placid Gage became impatient, unrestrained, and inconsiderate. He began exhibiting behavior that was, if not immoral, certainly not acceptable. The interesting implication of Gage's experience is that, rather than being actively promoted, moral behavior may be the result of cortical inhibition of certain behaviors. That's an attractive proposition because it makes morality seem just like a lot of other nervous system functions; much of the job of the motor cortex is to inhibit action, for example. This makes morality seem almost routine in terms of neurological function.

[thaiboxerken]

And when someone summarizes another's position, the onus is upon the summarizer to make sure that the summary is correct by providing corroborating evidence from what the person whom the summarizer is summarizing has said.

That would not be summarizing a position, then, it would be re-posting what was said earlier and simply adding to confusion. From what I've read, Skeptigirl has summed up what DogDoctor has said very nicely and accurately. It would take one post for DD to simply re-state his "actual arguments" in as many words if he disagrees with her summation of his posts.

[articulett]

Missed this one. Awareness of morality is not a criteria for having morals. I've never seen awareness included in any definition of morality. We have very little means of determining whether or not a chimp who has a sense of fairness is aware of that sense. There is no mirror we can hold up and see if they have awareness.

But you cannot rule it out either. And since there is a reaction to perceived fairness and unfairness in non-human primates, then the morality of fairness exists. Just labeling human morality different because we can have a conversation about it doesn't change the morality itself.

Moreover, as Hauser shows--people often don't "know" why they find one choice more moral than another. When the guy in New York jumped on the tracks to save an epileptic and saved both their lives he was acting on "instinct"... he doesn't really know why he did what he did... we tend to confabulate reasons after the fact for doing what we did when we don't understand our reasoning...

Mijo is a "dogdoctor" type in my estimation... for what that's worth. Modify your expectations of dialogue accordingly. :)

[mijopaalmc]

Moral constructs are actually based more in our ability to empathize than they are based in any kind of intellectual contemplation.

Therefore it should be blindingly obvious that Dogdoctor's argument that atheism cannot for the basis for a moral society is not in any way akin your presention of his arguments:

All morality comes from theism. Without god beliefs one is amoral or is only moral because they learned morality from theists. All the evidence I posted wasn't evidence. It was evidence but not proof. There are no legitimate reasons to promote atheism. Anyone promoting atheism is a fundamentalist atheist blindly being dogmatic about atheism.

Why do you (along with articulett and thaiboxerken) seemingly willfully ignore this?

[mijopaalmc]

That would not be summarizing a position, then, it would be re-posting what was said earlier and simply adding to confusion. From what I've read, Skeptigirl has summed up what DogDoctor has said very nicely and accurately. It would take one post for DD to simply re-state his "actual arguments" in as many words if he disagrees with her summation of his posts.

She could have easily provided links to posts (possibly with annotations) that she thought corroborated her interpretation. Instead, she made bald and patently false assertions, a form of argument that I am assuming she would not accept from anyone else.

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo is a "dogdoctor" type in my estimation... for what that's worth. Modify your expectations of dialogue accordingly. :)

Yeah, I'm Just like Dogdoctor in that when one makes a claim about presenting an accurate summary of another's position they need to back it up with actual evidence, which articulett, skeptigirl, and thaiboxerken adamantly refuse to do when they claim to summarize Dogodoctor's argument. Looks like most of the dishonesty here is coming from those who most vehemently claim to be atheists and skeptics.

[The Atheist]

Yeah, I'm Just like Dogdoctor in that when one makes a claim about presenting an accurate summary of another's position they need to back it up with actual evidence, which articulett, skeptigirl, and thaiboxerken adamantly refuse to do when they claim to summarize Dogodoctor's argument. Looks like most of the dishonesty here is coming from those who most vehemently claim to be atheists and skeptics.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1037745273b48d5bd3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1810)

[mijopaalmc]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1037745273b48d5bd3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1810)

I didn't mean you.

[thaiboxerken]

She could have easily provided links to posts (possibly with annotations) that she thought corroborated her interpretation. Instead, she made bald and patently false assertions, a form of argument that I am assuming she would not accept from anyone else.

Problem is, only you and he are disputing it. Most others can agree that the summarization is accurate.

[mijopaalmc]

Problem is, only you and he are disputing it. Most others can agree that the summarization is accurate.

Evidence?

Silence does not equal assent.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Therefore it should be blindingly obvious that Dogdoctor's argument that atheism cannot for the basis for a moral society is not in any way akin your presention of his arguments:...You make no sense at all here. The ability to empathize is an innate emotion like the ability to experience joy or sadness. Dd is claiming that morality comes from higher order thinking, as opposed to innate emotion.

Even if you clarify his bizarre definition that theism is really an organized religious belief set and atheism has nothing to do with no belief in god, but rather means not belonging to any organized cultural group, that still ignores the underlying innate sense of morality that originates from our genes.

So let's back up a minute. Theism is a belief in a god or gods. Atheism is the belief there is no such thing. Dd has equated a belief in god with having a set of moral values and somehow if you don't believe in some kind of god then you couldn't have a set of moral values. He blurred that then by claiming if you didn't have a belief in a god you could still get that set of moral values from other people who did.

Despite the fact he has not been clear in this discussion about atheism and the capacity for moral beliefs, he has been clear in stating that morality originated within theistic beliefs. There is no evidence that is the case. You cannot cite any particular religion that these moral basics originated in, nor can you find any consistent set of moral beliefs between religions.

You can find a lot of rituals and rules that originate in religions. Are we to think it is a moral choice to not consume pork or beef? Is it a moral choice to execute a woman for having been raped? Is it a moral choice to pray to Mecca 5 times a day or kiss the Pope's ring?

And do you seriously believe that without religion or theism humans would not have a moral imperative against murder? Which came first, caring for an invalid member of the group or some religion which required it?

How does a child acquire the reaction to injuring another person or even an animal? Do they only acquire such a moral sense if it is taught to them? Next time you are around a toddler, pretend you are crying and injured and see how they respond to you.

There is all kinds of evidence for the evolutionary biological basis of morality. It did not take some set of rules, be they moral rules Dd is confusingly calling "theism" or be they simple governmental 'based' moral rules one could imagine an atheist society still developing as needed for the tribe to maintain cohesion (for whatever reason Dd lumps these possibilities all into theism).

Morality came before the rules. If it didn't then we wouldn't see evidence of it until children learned the rules of morality and we would see no animal behavior suggesting moral choices.

[The Atheist]

I didn't mean you.

No, I know. I was emphasising there was no need for me to add to your comment.

Problem is, only you and he are disputing it. Most others can agree that the summarization is accurate.

Wrong. I see only you supporting the fallacy and I see Skeptigirl avoiding the subject.

Still 0-3.

[articulett]

Yes, I think the majority would generally agree with this summation. Dd believes the common canard that faith is necessary for morality and that without religion, all hell would break loose. He also thinks that atheists are generally less moral or don't have a moral code and the exhibits the usual bigotry we hear outside a skeptics forum. He has a strawman view of atheism as "bad" and a strawman view of faith as "good" (particularly biblical brand of faith it seems). He presumes that any common morality like "do not kill" is due to religion and that without believing in god, people will rape and pillage. Feel free to disagree if anyone thinks I haven't summed up the basics.

(ETA--and Dd thinks that any morality in atheists is due to left over theological influences in their culture (tee-hee) as Skepticgirl noted.)

We can't say that theists won't rape and pillage without their fear of god and threats of hell keeping them in line, but we can point out that theists by all and every measurable means exhibit no greater morality nor do atheists exhibit greater immorality than believers.

Moreover, faith doesn't keep the clergy from committing pedolphilia and most scriptures advocate a fair degree of killing for god, torture, sexism, and generally barbaric morality (stone people who eat shellfish, etc.) Theists pretend they get their moral code from their religion, but like everyone else, they see to have evolved a tendency towards morality just as our pets do... and just as we develop a tendency to learn language and gestures. Imitation, genetics, and the culture refines the learning just as it does for language. Brain damage can alter the process. This is pretty well substantiated by ever growing evidence that theists remain oddly uninterested in or aware of.

Perhaps they are being purposefully ignorant or pretending this evidence is a "belief" and their counter argument (which is actually just a "belief") is substantiated by evidence--but the facts show otherwise as the majority of posters on this thread have noted.

The regular apologists sort of agree with some version of Dd's views though they dodge and weave and it's hard to pin them down but the basic meme they all have is that faith is good (for what?--who knows... they never really show evidence for anything) and atheists are bad (militant, shrill, fundamentalist, immoral, communists, the cause of all evil, in-waiting to do wonton evil, etc.) They tend to derail and it's hard to follow their points, but basically they are --as always spinning some version of Dd's original post in their head. They want to believe that theism and faith make people good and moral and that atheists and atheism leads to moral decay and the break down of society. And so they continually spin this delusion without ever saying that is what they are doing. They may not even be aware of it. I think they think they are defending poor theists from us "fundamental atheists"-- though their omniscient overlord can do whatever he wants without their help. They repeatedly confuse disbelief with attack of believers. Disbelief in astrology is not an attack on believers of astrology. The same with disbelief in gods. (They never get this).

The vast majority, however, are following skepticgirl, dglas, etc. and agree that this is a canard. They understand Dd's argument just fine. It's wrong. It's a lie-- a meme perpetuated by theists and apologists to ensure the propagation of "faith" which believers have come to believe is ennobling, the key to happiness, humility, and morality-- and salvation worthy to boot. Of course they all have different faiths they believe this about. There is no unifying theistic morality or anything else.

Religion does not make people more moral in any measurable way. It may, in some cases, lead to particular kinds of bigotry and immorality (killing infidels, for example, or witches). Lack of religion does not make people more likely to engage in immoral behavior. Atheists as a percentage of the population are small... but they are overly represented among scientists and great thinkers of the world. They are under represented in the prison populations. They are not more likely to kill, rape, steal or commit pedophilia, homicide or torture of people or animals. In fact, it appears theists... particularly male theists have an edge in all these areas. No atheist is trying to abolish religion or stop believers from believing except when they sense harm such as in cults or those fooled by Sylvia Browne. We aren't out to stop belief in Santa, Zeus, rain dances, or whatever it is that makes you feel warm and cozy. They don't hate god anymore than they hate Santa. Atheists are not the ones demanding that people don't believe... I think most are smart enough to know that you can't "mandate" what people believe and don't believe. Theists don't often "get" that and so they force people to at least pretend to believe or to say they believe or they fear them, shun them and foster prejudices about them (when they're not killing them, of course).

There is nothing in Dd post which is supported by evidence and much to support the contrary. If anyone disagrees with this summation they are free to speak up. If I've missed a point--feel free. If anyone has any evidence for Dd's position they have not presented it, and probably can't or won't-- and yet they'll continue the canard -- all the while claiming they aren't being bigots or stubborn and accusing others of traits more evident in themselves. They will never change either. They will never cede a point or admit that maybe they were wrong. (I've learned a lot on this forum. :) )

[mijopaalmc]

[...]

Dd is claiming that morality comes from higher order thinking, as opposed to innate emotion.

[...]

Dd has equated a belief in god with having a set of moral values and somehow if you don't believe in some kind of god then you couldn't have a set of moral values. He blurred that then by claiming if you didn't have a belief in a god you could still get that set of moral values from other people who did.

[...]

It did not take some set of rules, be they moral rules Dd is confusingly calling "theism" or be they simple governmental 'based' moral rules one could imagine an atheist society still developing as needed for the tribe to maintain cohesion (for whatever reason Dd lumps these possibilities all into theism).

Where did Dogdoctor make any of these claims which you ascribe to him?

As far as I have read in his posts, he has said that atheism cannot be the basis for a moral society because it does not provide any moral direction to society, being only a lack of belief in God/gods.

[articulett]

Atheism cannot be a basis for a moral society because it isn't anything... secularism can and IS. Rationalism and humanism also can be the basis for a great society... and they are. Skepticism too--it's the basis of this forum community, isn't it?

Can "non-Scientology" be the basis of a Society? No. That's the reason atheism cannot be. Not because atheist are immoral or theists run things better. There is no evidence that religion benefits society at all and lots and lots of evidence that secularism does the best job for the most people. Atheists generally want to keep church and state separate--not abolish religion contrary to the canard. We don't want to abolish rain dancing either. We just don't want people who believe woo to be letting their woo make our laws.

If you can't see this... the problem is your belief system. Not atheists, atheism, or anything else.

[JoeEllison]

I kind of wish that I could live up to this sort of image of "atheist as amoral cretin" that people like Dogdoctor are so attached to. It would be much more interesting than the reality. The reality is that I woke up a little too early because my cat is waking up and wanting to play at 4AM this week. I went for my morning run with my dog, I kissed my wife good bye on her way to work, and then I pressure-washed my driveway. I took a shower, went to class for a few hours, and then I stopped by the store to get some epoxy to make my solar-powered walkway lights hold together before I drive them into the ground. After that, I played Call of Duty 4 on Xbox360 until my wife got home. We walked the dog, watered some plants, and then sat down for the night. We watched a couple of movies and had dinner. My wife turned in for the night, and here I am.

No lying or oath-breaking. No child-molesting or stealing. None of the dozens of stupid and wrong things that religious bigots assume I must be doing, simply because I'm not as stone-stupid as they are. No, I don't believe in your imaginary friend, and no, it doesn't drive me to do evil things.

What, all you theists who attack atheists, is the evil in YOUR heart, that only religious faith keeps in check? What is it that YOU would do, if only you didn't believe in a higher power? Please, for the sake of whatever nonsense you keep holy, don't project your ethical failings onto me.

[The Atheist]

I kind of wish that I could live up to this sort of image of "atheist as amoral cretin" that people like Dogdoctor are so attached to.

Mate, a polite suggestion - you're a reasonable bloke. Read what he has said rather than someone else's summary.

I don't think dogdoc has actually argued that at any stage. Lots of theists do, but it doesn't match with what I've read DD say, and clarify, so far. It is certainly how he's being summed up, but that is by a small subset of people whose reading and comprehension skills are at best, suspect.

I'll agree that dogdoc hasn't articulated his position terribly well, but he has tried hard with later clarification to make his point. Atheists being immoral hasn't been one of them, unless I've missed it, dealing with about four threads all on more or less the same subject!

[mijopaalmc]

Atheism cannot be a basis for a moral society because it isn't anything...

And that is the crux of Dogdoctor's argument. Not that atheists are immoral (or whatever other tripe articulett, JoeEllison, skeptigirl, and thaiboxerken are trying to ascribe to him).

Bu the way, there is a difference between amoral (http://www.answers.com/amoral&r=67) and immoral (http://www.answers.com/immoral&r=67). Only one of the word is necessarily derogatory from the view of the establishment. Look it up.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where did Dogdoctor make any of these claims which you ascribe to him?

As far as I have read in his posts, he has said that atheism cannot be the basis for a moral society because it does not provide any moral direction to society, being only a lack of belief in God/gods.I never pictured you as having difficulty with abstract thought. But now I am beginning to wonder. And no, that isn't meant to insult you regardless of how it sounds. I am trying to figure out why your perception of this discussion is so far out in left field as it is. And no, that isn't meant to insult you either as bad as it sounds.

Your summation here of what Dd is saying does not contradict what I said that you are replying to. In fact, it is exactly what I am saying but for some reason you don't get it.

Dd is claiming that morality comes from higher order thinking, as opposed to innate emotion. Any morality that comes from a society's direction, be it theistic or not is morality coming from higher order thinking. What do you think higher order thinking means? It means conscious thought, formal doctrine, as opposed to something genetically innate within the brain that we do on a more subconscious level.

Dd has equated a belief in god with having a set of moral values and somehow if you don't believe in some kind of god then you couldn't have a set of moral values. He blurred that then by claiming if you didn't have a belief in a god you could still get that set of moral values from other people who did.Which is just what you have said you think Dd's position is.

The only difference is I have referred to Dd blurring the idea that one needs a belief in gods in order to come up with the moral structure, as if the god belief is a critical component. Maybe you haven't noticed but Dd has used the term 'theist' as having beliefs and 'atheist' as not having belief. This is a complete misuse of the terms as was evidenced by Dd's confusion when someone brought up the Humanist belief structure. Dd was at a loss and lumped humanism in with theism as an organized religion.

In case you are also confused, atheism refers to god beliefs not to religion. Humanists groups are made up of atheists and agnostics. No belief in a god is required. And atheism does not preclude belonging to a group with a set of shared values, rituals and rules. One does not need a belief in a god to develop those values, rituals and rules.

It did not take some set of rules, be they moral rules Dd is confusingly calling "theism" or be they simple governmental 'based' moral rules one could imagine an atheist society still developing as needed for the tribe to maintain cohesion (for whatever reason Dd lumps these possibilities all into theism).Again, what you describe Dd's position as being does not contradict this quote. You paraphrase Dd's position as, "atheism cannot be the basis for a moral society because it does not provide any moral direction to society"

Yes, that is Dd's confusion over the meaning of the term, atheism. But even taking his mistaken use of the word, atheism, and translating it into the word as he is using it, 'a'religionism, the evidence supports morality came before religion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And that is the crux of Dogdoctor's argument. Not that atheists are immoral (or whatever other tripe articulett, JoeEllison, skeptigirl, and thaiboxerken are trying to ascribe to him).

Bu the way, there is a difference between amoral (http://www.answers.com/amoral&r=67) and immoral (http://www.answers.com/immoral&r=67). Only one of the word is necessarily derogatory from the view of the establishment. Look it up.You are the only one (except maybe Dd) that thinks we don't get what he is saying despite his misuse of the term, atheism.

But you also don't seem to get that we don't agree with Dd, not because we think he is saying atheists are amoral, (because he generously said we could learn morality from theists, :rolleyes:), we disagree with Dd because he is saying humanity either needed a belief in gods or some sort of religious framework involving a belief in gods in order to develop moral preferences.

That is an unsupportable claim often repeated by theists who like the idea religion has something to offer that science and rational thought do not. It's such a tired claim. Without god beliefs life has no meaning and people have no morality. It is an unsupportable fantasy.

OTOH, the evolutionary biological basis for morality which rests heavily on an innate sense of fairness, of empathy, and of natural family and group bonding is well supported by the evidence.

[Mobyseven]

The onus is on her since she made specific claims about what he was saying.

Except, and you seem to have missed this, a number of us actually agree with her summary of Dogdoctor's position. We don't agree because we're mindless automatons, we agree because we've read the thread. We know what evidence and posts she is referring to. It doesn't take a freakin' rocket scientist to read a thread.

Now, nowhere in this thread am I aware of a counterexample to what Skeptigirl said. All that is required to falsify Skeptigirl's claim is a single counterexample - and the burden is on Dogdoctor to provide that example if it exists.

Don't try and shift the burden of proof, and don't just yell 'strawman' unless you're willing to back up the claim with evidence. Put up or shut up. Or, apologise, which would also be nice.

[mijopaalmc]

But you also don't seem to get that we don't agree with Dd, not because we think he is saying atheists are amoral, (because he generously said we could learn morality from theists, :rolleyes:), we disagree with Dd because he is saying humanity either needed a belief in gods or some sort of religious framework involving a belief in gods in order to develop moral preferences.

You don't seem to understand that the interpretation of Dogdoctor's argument put forth in the above paragraph is a straw man. As I understand him, he is saying that belief (or lack thereof) in God/gods has nothing to do with the morality (or lack thereof) of the believer; thus neither theism nor atheism in and of the itself can provide a coherent statement on morality because morality is not inherent to a belief (or lack thereof) in God/gods.

Now, theism does provide a mechanism for establishing morality by assuming that the God/gods are valid authorities on morality, but that is an extra assumption not inherent to theism itself.

[mijopaalmc]

Except, and you seem to have missed this, a number of us actually agree with her summary of Dogdoctor's position. We don't agree because we're mindless automatons, we agree because we've read the thread. We know what evidence and posts she is referring to. It doesn't take a freakin' rocket scientist to read a thread.

Now, nowhere in this thread am I aware of a counterexample to what Skeptigirl said. All that is required to falsify Skeptigirl's claim is a single counterexample - and the burden is on Dogdoctor to provide that example if it exists.

Don't try and shift the burden of proof, and don't just yell 'strawman' unless you're willing to back up the claim with evidence. Put up or shut up. Or, apologise, which would also be nice.

Last time I checked, the burden of proof rested upon the one making the positive claim, which were the kind of claims skeptigirl made in this post:

All morality comes from theism. Without god beliefs one is amoral or is only moral because they learned morality from theists. All the evidence I posted wasn't evidence. It was evidence but not proof. There are no legitimate reasons to promote atheism. Anyone promoting atheism is a fundamentalist atheist blindly being dogmatic about atheism.

She claimed that Dogdoctor made these claims; therefore, she bears the burden of proof to corroborate them with actual evidence.

ETA: You are also making a positive claim as to the existence of evidence that corroborates skeptigirl's summary, so I suggest that you either present it (as she has been loath to do) or follow your own advice (put up and shut up or apologize).

[Skeptic Ginger]

There were a lot of pages to go through here. I'll try to just post supporting quotes but these elements from Dogsoctor's claims are synthesized down sometimes from whole exchanges. Dd's quotes are italicized. All morality comes from theism.This thread: post #1 atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure).

post #76 I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society.

post #77 There are countries like you say but where to their morals and social structure come from? It is likely remnants of religion. Originally religion created the ideas and they have been borrowed and altered over time....If they can preserve a core of unbreakable morals then maybe an atheist society can persist over time but it will take something other than atheism to do so.



Without god beliefs one is amoral or is only moral because they learned morality from theists.post #78 Because atheism is lack of belief it is not unifying. They need to have a unifying belief system to deal with stuff that isn't entirely logical such as morals. .... Without it you have just a bunch of angry atheists splitting into smaller and smaller groups due to disagreements in what is important.

post #182 Religious people are raised to believe things like the ten commandments and other things and for the most part they follow them. It's not rocket science. Atheism has no beliefs only the lack of belief. Ok so theism has similar problems however unlike atheists, religions have a core of values and morals that are shared with other similar religions. Atheist values and morality are hilly willy all over the place and atheists don't share a core of values and morals.
eta
Ok not exactly that they don't have shared values and morals which they may have associated with living in communities where religion has existed. But that once removed from the constraints of such a society those values would fade away into chaos with time.



All the evidence I posted wasn't evidence. It was evidence but not proof.(combined for convenience)

post #88 there isn't meanigful data about these issues ... Skepticism often fails in these situation since we have opinions without data to support it.

post #108

post #109 I continued, "How have you gone this long without hearing that this crap has been debunked? It's one of the cornerstone erroneous arguments that is used to try to debunk evolution. The survival of the fittest is wrongly portrayed as always being self serving therefore if God didn't make us we should all be sociopaths. It didn't dawn on these people that altruistic behavior might have a survival advantage. It also didn't dawn on them to take a look at our animal relatives.

post #112 [directly replying to me] [I]Well I still try to maintain an open mind about things unlike fundamentalist atheists who are happy to stop where they are comfortable.

post #113 In addition if a gorrila did help a child in an instance that doesn't mean much. If you would like me to tell you stories about gorillas killing people who tried to help them I could do so. If you want to say we are no better than gorillas, speak for yourself.

[This is a typical anti-evolutionist sentiment, humans are not primates. But of course, biologically, we are and there is nothing insulting about it. It does not change our worth or humanness to have a common primate ancestor with the great apes.]

post #115 [I]Where ever your morality comes from I find it lacking.

post #122 [I]Hmm lets see.....some one who has no problem making personal attacks on other posters....do you suppose they might not have well developed morals? How about making a post listing a bunch of sources of opinions on morals by a person who cares little about people who disagree with them? It's almost like an appeal to authority except that the poster obviously doesn't have well developped morals so why bother posting it even if it is some kind of dirty distracting trick fitting of their morality?




These 2 came from the previous thread of which Mijo participated so there's no claiming he was unaware of the discussion leading up to this thread.

There are no legitimate reasons to promote atheism. Anyone promoting atheism is a fundamentalist atheist blindly being dogmatic about atheism.( again combined for convenience; The following are from the thread the discussion initially began in.) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108466)

post #38 [I]Only a fundamentalist atheist will claim to not have beliefs because that in itself is a fundamental belief.

post #43 Atheists have dogmatic devotion to other beliefs such as that they have no beliefs.

post #50 Do atheists hold strong philosophical or political positions which have no real scientific evidence? Are they unwilling to examine that they may be wrong? Sounds like a fundamentalist to me.

post #55 Has anyone who thinks they have no beleifs bothered to get an unbiased opinion about it?

post #72 What objective evidence have you collected that you have no beliefs? If you say you know this to be evident because you personally know this to be true then how is that different from other beliefs? The idea that you have no no beliefs is just your own personal dogma without objective evidence.

post #91 You haven't read this thread close enough. Go back and re read it. In my opinion the word "beleif" is used by atheists to set themselves as superior and seperate from religious people. Many atheists claim robotic/computerized powers of thinking so much so that they have no closely held thoughts that aren't based on good evidence. If they really want to seperate themselves then they have to demand of themselves a higher level of proof other than their own opinion of something since otherwise the evidence provided for god by religious people would also be sufficient. I doubt that anyone has made any effort to gather objective evidence that they lack beleifs. I just asked for evidence of such and no one has responded (as expected). It seems to me that anyone claiming unequivocally that they have no beleifs qualifies as a fundamentalist atheist.

post #112 People who are sure that they are better than others by virtue of their philosophy or religion without objective data to support that and people who are sure their philosophy/religion is superior to others without objective data to support it would qualify as fundamentalists in my opinion. They rely on fundamental beliefs without questioning them.

post #117 Yes but their emotional aggression doesn't change that they hold beleifs not founded in science.

post #118 I disagree with you. The "strong atheists" are not the same subset as the fundamentalist atheists. Strong atheism only has to do with how sure you are there is no god. Fundamentalist atheists have other beliefs like the idea that they have no beliefs. Or the belief that emotional aggressive discourse with others is somehow good for atheism or is helping other atheists. Or the belief that religion is not needed in the world.

post #138 The problem the atheist fundamentalists have is that athesim hasn't ever been sucessful in society as a stand alone philosophy. So there basically isn't any data about atheistic societies and how well they do. So any beleifs are based on opinions and not fact based. However when you get enough of them together they reinforce each others mistaken beleifs that they are basing their dogma on solid evidence. A bunch of people saying the same thing doesn't make it true.

post #146 This is true except that it hasn't been belabored enough around here yet or people will quit promoting anti-religious dogma. Humanism might be a basis for society but humanism allows people to have religion.

post #151 Nope. But from this forum and from my invovlement in other atheist organizations I would say there are large numbers who wish to stamp out religon (percentage wise I am not sure). I only object to those who aggressively promote anti-relgious dogma.

post #155 [This is where I came in] First, it isn't "dogma". Show me evidence gods exist and I'll adjust my previous conclusions.

Second, "stamping out religion" is poorly framing the concept. A better frame would be to raise the level of critical thinking so that more people came to the conclusion based on the evidence that god beliefs are primitive ways that early humans explained the world around them. Better, careful, and cumulative observations have shown gods beliefs to be human generated myths rather than evidence real gods exist.

post #156 [skep continues] The "I'm OK, you're OK" philosophy has a problem when it comes to religious and cultural beliefs. On the one hand, it serves a useful purpose to not confront such beliefs directly in a multitude of situations. For example, if I want to provide the best medical care for you, that is not the time to confront your irrational beliefs.

But on the other hand, there is a time and a place to promote critical thinking. When in that setting, allowing an exception for certain magical beliefs is really hypocritical. Isn't it hypocritical to debunk something like psychic powers while letting something like the belief in the power of prayer to slide?

post #158 [skep continues] How do you decide to allow religion while condemning homeopathy? Not every believer in homeopathy is taking advantage of someone and not everyone with religion isn't. I have a hard time finding the objective criteria with which to distinguish between the two.

post #161 Whatever anyone believes has no effect on you. Homeopathy is a scam to rip off people but if it could be conducted in a manner where individuals made their own concoctions to be used by themselves then I wouldn't worry about it. If people choose to believe in god it has no effect on you unless they somehow stop you from doing what you want to do.

post #162 It is dogma if you are saying that religion isn't needed. How about forcing others to think the way you do? Or perhaps magically transforming others into skeptics? Not everyone is capable of that. Can't be done.

post #173 [skep continues] So you also think the whole does not affect the individual? Think again. Your medical costs reflect the average. You pay for fraud other people fall for. You suffer the government other people elect.

I can't believe you guys really don't recognize the effect people have on the community that you live in and that it also affects us all.

post #174 [skep answers #162]And as far as forcing, again you re-frame what I've said to suit your own distorted version. Please find where I said anything about "forcing" anyone?

You certainly have an ax to grind here.

I have no qualms about calling religion woo. I see no reason to criticize one form of woo while excusing another. Seems rather hypocritical.

On the other hand, I've said twice now, forcing and legislating social change is not effective. The evidence suggests other approaches work better.

post #184/185 Do you think you can stop all people from thinking what you don't want them to think? Do you think I am not a skeptic? Do you think you are more benficial to the skeptical community than me? Do you think I want to promote woo?

Call it whatever you want. I am not excusing it. What do you offer as an alternative? Nothing but angry arguments so far. Do you think you can brow beat others to agree with you?...

post #186 Do you want to know something about my beliefs? How about this. I think that fundamentalist atheists will continue to hold on to their fundamentalist beliefs once you have shown them the fallacy of their thought processes because those thoughts are fundamental to their belief system.

post #201 Well some religious fundamentalists don't hate atheism or atheists but treat them poorly anyway. Militant atheism might be a better descriptor but it doesn't say anything about the lack of skepticism and dogmatic belief system required to hold that position.

post #205 I am not debating the existence of god merely the required existence of religion. And that religion has never gone away and that anyone thinking it will doesn't have any objective data to support that position. That anyone aggressively attacking religion just because it is religion is self motivated and hasn't thought out the issue or refuses to look at it due to dogmatic beliefs (or they are an idiot).

post #207 I dare you to expose your justification for attacking religion.[at JoeE]

[The exchange continued beyond this but I think this represents the gist of it. To Dd, any reason to work against theism or religion was dogmatic fundamental atheism. And reason it might be desired to eliminate theism and religion was not based on reason, merely on dogmatic atheism.]



And here is the post where Dd confuses atheism with 'a'religionism:

This thread, post #187 Not individually shared but as a group shared by similar religions. There are lots of things such as you as an individual shouldn't kill people. Also you shouldn't cheat or steal or lie. I never said I had proof only that the opposite was not proven either. Humanism is not atheism. Are you claiming humanism is atheism? Humanism is humanism, it is a belief system.


Again Dd speaks as if the 'a'theism excludes beliefs in right and wrong rather than atheism meaning no belief in a god which is what the word means. But even that claim is specious as if not having some organized 'group think' means one has no moral basis.

[mijopaalmc]

I'm glad you decided to actually provide what you consider to be evidence, skeptigirl.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, Mijo, I was hoping for more of an apology. A number of people agreed the evidence was throughout the thread and seeing you had yourself objected to some of Dd's posts in the other thread made me wonder what your interest in a personal attack on my integrity was based on. I'm sure no one was really interested in seeing all that stuff of Dd's rehashed.

[mijopaalmc]

Actually, Mijo, I was hoping for more of an apology. A number of people agreed the evidence was throughout the thread and seeing you had yourself objected to some of Dd's posts in the other thread made me wonder what your interest in a personal attack on my integrity was based on. I'm sure no one was really interested in seeing all that stuff of Dd's rehashed.

Well, I think that you have nonetheless grossly misinterpreted Dogdoctor's argument, because the predominate theme in all of the evidence you have presented is how the belief (or lack thereof) in God/gods doesn't provide a meaningful or uniting moral force. In fact, I think that it is quite clear from what you posted that Dogdoctor understands that it is the axiom of supernatural infallibility from which theism derives its unifying moral force rather that the axiom of supernatural existence. Furthermore, I think what he has been and is responding to is the quite prevalent belief on this board that the world would be better off if theism didn't exist. He does so by saying that atheism lacks the unifying moral force that theism possesses due the axiom of supernatural infallibility, as atheism necessarily lacks it, because atheism lacks the axiom of supernatural existence. This does not mean that either theists or atheists are moral or immoral because the believe or disbelieve in God/gods; it just means that a society needs a greater unifying moral force that the simple belief or disbelief in God/gods.

[thaiboxerken]

And, like a typical faith-filled person, Mijo looks directly at the evidence and dismisses it.

[mijopaalmc]

And, like a typical faith-filled person, Mijo looks directly at the evidence and dismisses it.

Unfortunately for you, the people with whom you agree are notorious for presenting what they consider evidence of their claims that is not actually evidence of their claims. This is a prime example. skeptigirl is forcing what Dogdoctor wrote into a stereotyped mold of what she considers to be theists' argument about atheism and immorality and therefore ignoring what Dogodoctor is actually saying, as I explained in my post above.

[plumjam]

Well said Mijo,

For those of you here of the faith that society would be better without religion, and who would want to actively get rid of it:
What methods would you use to do so?
I expect that the standard answer would be via education. Let's say you used education but religion stubbornly persists...(as has been the case pretty universally in history, when education has been tried).
What would you do then?

[Skeptic Ginger]

And, like a typical faith-filled person, Mijo looks directly at the evidence and dismisses it.It's like there are two parallel universes here. I am dumbfounded.

[JoeEllison]

And, like a typical faith-filled person, Mijo looks directly at the evidence and dismisses it.

It could be worse... some other folks, like plumjam, come out lyingswinging in every thread they post to, and add exactly nothing. Ignoring evidence is one thing, but just making stuff up is a whole other thing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I think that you have nonetheless grossly misinterpreted Dogdoctor's argument, because the predominate theme in all of the evidence you have presented is how the belief (or lack thereof) in God/gods doesn't provide a meaningful or uniting moral force. In fact, I think that it is quite clear from what you posted that Dogdoctor understands that it is the axiom of supernatural infallibility from which theism derives its unifying moral force rather that the axiom of supernatural existence. Furthermore, I think what he has been and is responding to is the quite prevalent belief on this board that the world would be better off if theism didn't exist. He does so by saying that atheism lacks the unifying moral force that theism possesses due the axiom of supernatural infallibility, as atheism necessarily lacks it, because atheism lacks the axiom of supernatural existence. This does not mean that either theists or atheists are moral or immoral because the believe or disbelieve in God/gods; it just means that a society needs a greater unifying moral force that the simple belief or disbelief in God/gods.This borders on the absurd. First off, what unifying moral force?

Second, I have stated without reservation that the world would be better off without mythical god beliefs. Mythical god beliefs hinder the progress of science and all of society suffers because of it. But Dd waves off that argument with his "opinion" despite the fact I can present evidence supporting my conclusion. Instead, Dd chalks it up to fundamentalism and dogmatic belief. He refuses to examine the reasons I presented as to how society would benefit from the end of mythical god beliefs. He is convinced despite admitting he has no evidence whatsoever that religion is the source of morality.

Of course that notion has been debunked by many great thinkers of our time, I am hardly the first to notice.

And here you are clinging to your initial misconception about what I've been saying, despite being told that it was wrong several times now. I told you I recognized Dd was giving atheists the ability to be moral beings. The trouble is he claims we must have gotten our morality only after theists invented it. Again he cites not one iota of evidence and in fact claimed there was none. When presented with evidence, he waved it off without even looking at it, as apparently are you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unfortunately for you, the people with whom you agree are notorious for presenting what they consider evidence of their claims that is not actually evidence of their claims. This is a prime example. skeptigirl is forcing what Dogdoctor wrote into a stereotyped mold of what she considers to be theists' argument about atheism and immorality and therefore ignoring what Dogodoctor is actually saying, as I explained in my post above.I've yet to hear you address the evidence. Why is that, Mijo?

And the only mold here is the one where you continue to repeat your misstatement of what you think I am arguing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well said Mijo,

For those of you here of the faith that society would be better without religion, and who would want to actively get rid of it:
What methods would you use to do so?
I expect that the standard answer would be via education. Let's say you used education but religion stubbornly persists...(as has been the case pretty universally in history, when education has been tried).
What would you do then?Despite your wishful thinking that god beliefs are valid and therefore hear to stay, human society has been moving away from god beliefs for several thousand years. Think about it. Do many people still believe in Zeus, Thor, Pele? Do they believe coyote stole fire from heaven? Is Atlas holding up the Earth or do many people think it is turtles all the way down?

As natural phenomena are explained using the scientific process, god explanations become unnecessary. Even if you look at numbers of theists and take comfort in the fact they number in the majority, those beliefs are weaker and weaker. The Bible is not literal, it is a bunch of myths. The last Pope declared evolution was unchallengeable.

Why is the Evangelical movement so successful? It isn't because people need god beliefs, it is because the church has adopted successful marketing techniques. Heck, so has Scientology. And atheism is increasing in most modern countries.

I am not concerned that we need to educate anyone that Biblical god beliefs are as nonsensical as ancient Greek god beliefs. It'll be a while before the masses indoctrinated with Judeo/Christian/Islamic fundamentalism figure it out. But it is still just a matter of time. And do you know why that is? It is because science is successful. Prayer and god beliefs are not. Superstitious rituals will die a natural death because they cannot cure cancer. They cannot send a vehicle to Mars. They cannot make the Internet work you are currently communicating with me on.

I don't have to do anything. People figured out Zeus and Thor are not controlling lightning bolts, eventually Christians will figure out hurricanes are not being directed at sinful cities either.

[mijopaalmc]

skeptigirl-

I have not addressed your "evidence" because it is quite blatantly not evidence of what you say it is evidence of.

[Darat]

DogDoctor - the thread moved on quite quickly since yesterday and I've not had a chance to read all the posts but I don't think you have responded to my follow-on question, in case you missed it here it is again:


Scientific evidence. What was posted was an opinion.


OK - so can you point to the scientific evidence that you used to form your conclusions in this thread?


(And of course anyone else agreeing with his conclusions please feel free to bring forward the scientific evidence you used to come to the same conclusions.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl-

I have not addressed your "evidence" because it is quite blatantly not evidence of what you say it is evidence of.You'll have to do better than that, Mijo. I posted links to two entire books on the evolution of morality, a number of studies on the evidence of moral decisions operating in non-human primates, and discussed the improbability that if moral behavior was learned rather than innate, it could not appear uniformly in children with completely different learning experiences and at as early an age as it occurs.

For someone who despite dogmatically sticking to your conclusions on stochastic evolution at least carried on a discussion based on scientific evidence, the claim I've presented no evidence is really disappointing of you.

[articulett]

Yes... what in the hell would be evidence if that isn't? It apparently IS evidence to everyone else except those who are of a "certain ilk". I would say the vast majority of people on this forum and all credible scientists would find that skeptic girl has provided a compendium of evidence. Moreover, the apologists have presented nothing. NOTHING. nothing. nada. Just insults and blather.

So apparently they think it's fine to pull information out of their ass and present it as "fact" while asserting that none of the scientific links or large scale studies provided count as evidence --because everything that opposes the information pulled from their nether regions they've decided to label a "belief". When asked what would constitute evidence; they fail to answer.

Interesting. It takes so little to convince the same old people of their well trotted out biases --and no amount of evidence is sufficient to budge them from this view. And they think skepticgirl hasn't supported her case???? On planet reality we call this kind of thinking "faith". It is associated with arrogance, confidence, and stupidity. I think it kind of sucks to have a loud little choir of atheist bigots (who are often a wee bit sexist I might add) on a Skeptics forum. Who'd have thunk it?

[plumjam]

Despite your wishful thinking that god beliefs are valid and therefore hear to stay, human society has been moving away from god beliefs for several thousand years.
Really?
According to this graph the current global percentage of non-religious + atheists = 14.3%
Let's assume (unjustifiedly) that 5,000 years ago all of humanity was religious. That would mean that for every thousand years the percentage of nr/atheists has increased by 2.86%, on average. This would mean that for the rest of the currently 85.7% of religious people to become nr/atheist you, with your laissez-faire approach to the question, would have to wait 29.96 thousand years, let's say 30,000 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png

Given that you seem to believe that religion is a malign influence in society isn't it a bit irresponsible of you toward your fellow man to just sit back, do nothing, and allow religion to do its damage for tens of thousands of years until a Golden Age of non-belief is finally reached?

Think about it. Do many people still believe in Zeus, Thor, Pele? Do they believe coyote stole fire from heaven? Is Atlas holding up the Earth or do many people think it is turtles all the way down?
These forms of religion were not swapped for non-religiosity/atheism. They were simply supplanted by other, new, forms of religion.

As natural phenomena are explained using the scientific process, god explanations become unnecessary.
Many theist scientists, past and present, would disagree with you on this.

Even if you look at numbers of theists and take comfort in the fact they number in the majority, those beliefs are weaker and weaker. The Bible is not literal, it is a bunch of myths. The last Pope declared evolution was unchallengeable.
So you value the Pope's opinion when he 'agrees' with you. Do you value it when the Pope disagrees with you?

Why is the Evangelical movement so successful? It isn't because people need god beliefs, it is because the church has adopted successful marketing techniques. Heck, so has Scientology. And atheism is increasing in most modern countries.
So the 'New Atheism' eschews successful marketing techniques?

I am not concerned that we need to educate anyone that Biblical god beliefs are as nonsensical as ancient Greek god beliefs. It'll be a while before the masses indoctrinated with Judeo/Christian/Islamic fundamentalism figure it out. But it is still just a matter of time.
This reminds me of the faith evolutionists display in their certainty that macro-evolution according to Darwin will one day be observed.

And do you know why that is? It is because science is successful.
The scientific method is relatively successful when applied to limited aspects of the intersubjective world. It can say nothing conclusive on the existence/non-existence of God. Application of the scientific method implies nothing about the beliefs of the person/s applying it.

Prayer and god beliefs are not. Superstitious rituals will die a natural death
more faith statements on your part

because they cannot cure cancer. They cannot send a vehicle to Mars. They cannot make the Internet work you are currently communicating with me on.
none of which have any bearing at all on the question of the existence of God, or the value of religion to society.

I don't have to do anything. People figured out Zeus and Thor are not controlling lightning bolts, eventually Christians will figure out hurricanes are not being directed at sinful cities either.
Atheism is a lot older than people seem to assume. There were schools of atheism/materialism stretching right back into ancient Indian history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka

The thing is, even after many centuries they have never caught on, and India remains perhaps the most religious society in the world.
Wonder why they never caught on.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Why is the Evangelical movement so successful? It isn't because people need god beliefs, it is because the church has adopted successful marketing techniques. Heck, so has Scientology. And atheism is increasing in most modern countries.

Really? I'm a bit skeptical that's the only or main reason.
So - who are the new converts to the Evangelical movement? People who weren't religious or people who were religious, but attended either a different religion or a different Christian denomination? And of those denominations, were they older denominations or new, traditional or recent?

[mijopaalmc]

You'll have to do better than that, Mijo. I posted links to two entire books on the evolution of morality, a number of studies on the evidence of moral decisions operating in non-human primates, and discussed the improbability that if moral behavior was learned rather than innate, it could not appear uniformly in children with completely different learning experiences and at as early an age as it occurs.

I'm not disputing that morality has evolutionary origins, but I don't see what it has to do with the argument that either theism or atheism is inherently moral or immoral because a belief in God/gods has nothing to do with morality.

For someone who despite dogmatically sticking to your conclusions on stochastic evolution at least carried on a discussion based on scientific evidence, the claim I've presented no evidence is really disappointing of you.

No, it isn't, but what is disappointing is that the evidence you provide is not evidence that actually answers the question asked*.

*Yes, evolution is biased and directed, but how do you deal with the fact that stochastic processes are also predominately biased and directed?

[thaiboxerken]

Interesting. It takes so little to convince the same old people of their well trotted out biases --and no amount of evidence is sufficient to budge them from this view. And they think skepticgirl hasn't supported her case???? On planet reality we call this kind of thinking "faith". It is associated with arrogance, confidence, and stupidity. I think it kind of sucks to have a loud little choir of atheist bigots (who are often a wee bit sexist I might add) on a Skeptics forum. Who'd have thunk it?

I have to wonder if these people actually just can't see the evidence or if they make a conscious effort to ignore it. Can faith be so strong that a fool who doesn't want to see the truck coming to run him over simply not see the truck?

Trying to reason with such people is like trying to convince a 5 yr old that Santa isn't real.

[articulett]

I must be a snob... but as soon as I recognize the "type"-- I think "another someone made dumb by faith... conversation will be fruitless... faith is not amenable to reason".

And then I put them on ignore :)

Do they ever have a point? Yes, we know they think: "faith makes people good and that atheists have no morals." We know all their bluster is to support this canard and that there is no evidence and much evidence which negates it. We know they will blame us and call us "fundamentalist atheists" when we point out the errors in their thinking and that they are fighting "straw men" while imagining themselves logical and humble and deep.

Round and round it goes.

I trust someone smart will quote them if they ever say anything of value.

[mijopaalmc]

I must be a snob... but as soon as I recognize the "type"-- I think "another someone made dumb by faith... conversation will be fruitless... faith is not amenable to reason". "another someone made dumb by faith... conversation will be fruitless... faith is not amenable to reason".

It's interesting how accurately this actually describes the people who have most vehemently criticized Dogdoctor in this thread. They have come up with a collection of statements that they think people who criticize atheists are making and then try to force the arguments that they come across into these stereotyped molds instead of bothering to read and understand what is really being argued.

Yes, we know they think: "faith makes people good and that atheists have no morals."

This is not the same thing as saying "(a)theism cannot form the basis for a moral society because (dis)belief in God/gods is not inherently (im)moral". Therefore, as pointed out before, what "we know they think" is a straw man for the purposes of this thread, because few of the people who are defending Dogdoctor (or even Dogdoctor himself) are actually making it.

[Mobyseven]

Unfortunately for you, the people with whom you agree are notorious for presenting what they consider evidence of their claims that is not actually evidence of their claims. This is a prime example. skeptigirl is forcing what Dogdoctor wrote into a stereotyped mold of what she considers to be theists' argument about atheism and immorality and therefore ignoring what Dogodoctor is actually saying, as I explained in my post above.

Back up a bit here. You're aware that of what you just read above, the bits in italics are things Dogdoctor actually said, right?

Because I'm a little confused as to how you can just blanketly dismiss the evidence that you asked for and that Skeptigirl provided (even though, really, she didn't have to).

Seems to me that both you and Dogdoctor owe her an apology.

[Mobyseven]

Really?
According to this graph the current global percentage of non-religious + atheists = 14.3%
Let's assume (unjustifiedly) that 5,000 years ago all of humanity was religious. That would mean that for every thousand years the percentage of nr/atheists has increased by 2.86%, on average. This would mean that for the rest of the currently 85.7% of religious people to become nr/atheist you, with your laissez-faire approach to the question, would have to wait 29.96 thousand years, let's say 30,000 years.

Well, this convinces me. There is absolutely no alternative. If only there were some kind of equation that was non-linear, perhaps atheism could be salvaged, but alas there is no other option.

I'll be back in a second. I gotta go call Leibniz and tell him his work is a sham based upon a lie.

[mijopaalmc]

Back up a bit here. You're aware that of what you just read above, the bits in italics are things Dogdoctor actually said, right?

Because I'm a little confused as to how you can just blanketly dismiss the evidence that you asked for and that Skeptigirl provided (even though, really, she didn't have to).

Seems to me that both you and Dogdoctor owe her an apology.

OK, skpetigirl did actually back up some of the claims she made about what Dogdoctor said, and I therefore apologize for not being a specific about what claims I was disputing.

However, as far as the claims that Dogdoctor said that all morality comes from theism and that without god beliefs one is immoral or is only moral because they learned morality from theism are simply not backed up by the material she quoted. This should be obvious to anyone who actually read the italicized quotes.

[articulett]

Why doesn't Mijo just state what the hell he thinks Dd's position is and what the hell evidence supports it? The rest of us seem to be on the same page and following along just fine. Except for Plumjam who is, as always, on planet Plumjam.

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, skpetigirl did actually back up some of the claims she made about what Dogdoctor said, and I therefore apologize for not being a specific about what claims I was disputing.Apology accepted.

However, as far as the claims that Dogdoctor said that all morality comes from theism and that without god beliefs one is immoral or is only moral because they learned morality from theism are simply not backed up by the material she quoted. This should be obvious to anyone who actually read the italicized quotes.

Were you referring to my italicized quotes in this post?

Originally Posted by skeptigirl paraphrasing Dogdoctor

* All morality comes from theism.

This thread: post #1 atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure).

post #76 I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society.

post #77 There are countries like you say but where to their morals and social structure come from? It is likely remnants of religion. Originally religion created the ideas and they have been borrowed and altered over time....If they can preserve a core of unbreakable morals then maybe an atheist society can persist over time but it will take something other than atheism to do so.


Originally Posted by skeptigirl paraphrasing Dogdoctor

* Without god beliefs one is amoral or is only moral because they learned morality from theists.

post #78 Because atheism is lack of belief it is not unifying. They need to have a unifying belief system to deal with stuff that isn't entirely logical such as morals. .... Without it you have just a bunch of angry atheists splitting into smaller and smaller groups due to disagreements in what is important.

post #182 Religious people are raised to believe things like the ten commandments and other things and for the most part they follow them. It's not rocket science. Atheism has no beliefs only the lack of belief. Ok so theism has similar problems however unlike atheists, religions have a core of values and morals that are shared with other similar religions. Atheist values and morality are hilly willy all over the place and atheists don't share a core of values and morals.
eta
Ok not exactly that they don't have shared values and morals which they may have associated with living in communities where religion has existed. But that once removed from the constraints of such a society those values would fade away into chaos with time.


How about you address Dd's actual words and explain to us what you would paraphrase them to mean rather than just making a blanket statement you get it and the rest of us don't?

[articulett]

pwnage.

go girl.

[mijopaalmc]

pwnage.

go girl.

Actually, skeptigirl reposting Dogdoctor's words just lends credence to the idea that she is misinterpreting him.

I also suggest that you take me off ignore* so that you can actually read my arguments.

*I just wanted to make it know to everybody the articulett has me on ignore in case anyone had forgotten

[mijopaalmc]

skeptigirl-

I think that it is fairly obvious from the quotations you posted that Dogdoctor is arguing that the simple belief (or lack thereof) cannot in and of itself provide the basis for the moral structure, rather it is the ancillary dogma and creeds that are said to come from supernatural entities that form said moral basis. I also think that it is evident that theism preceded the explicit atheism*of the modern age, that theism codified (and more importantly, elaborated) evolutionarily encoded morality, and that it is by this theistic codification of evolutionary imperatives that even the modern atheists are influenced when forming their moral outlooks.

*as opposed the implicit atheism of an individual who has never considered

[thaiboxerken]

skeptigirl-

I think that it is fairly obvious from the quotations you posted that Dogdoctor is arguing that the simple belief (or lack thereof) cannot in and of itself provide the basis for the moral structure

Not really, considering that he's stated that without religion, there would be no morality. He's also stated that any atheist society gets it's morality from religion.

He completely ignores much of the secular morality that has come about DESPITE religion, namely freedom of expression, speech and religion.

[articulett]

Slam Dunk.

Yay team Skeptic!

[Dogdoctor]

Missed this one. Awareness of morality is not a criteria for having morals. I've never seen awareness included in any definition of morality. We have very little means of determining whether or not a chimp who has a sense of fairness is aware of that sense. There is no mirror we can hold up and see if they have awareness.

But you cannot rule it out either. And since there is a reaction to perceived fairness and unfairness in non-human primates, then the morality of fairness exists. Just labeling human morality different because we can have a conversation about it doesn't change the morality itself.

We don't know why dolphins act the way they do so can't say if it is the same as humans who do know. You can call it morality but whether it is as simialr to saying a dolphins tail flukes are like human legs we don't know. Humans are aware of cheating and lieing (most of them anyway) are dolphins? Can a dolphin make a choice? It makes a difference.

[Dogdoctor]

And when someone summarizes another's position, the onus is upon the summarizer to make sure that the summary is correct by providing corroborating evidence from what the person whom the summarizer is summarizing has said.

I don't owe her anything. If she wants to know she can ask instead of printing out her fantasy of me. If she wants to claim that I said something she should quote me and not her strawmen.

[Dogdoctor]

There were a lot of pages to go through here. I'll try to just post supporting quotes but these elements from Dogsoctor's claims are synthesized down sometimes from whole exchanges. Dd's quotes are italicized. This thread: post #1 atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure).

post #76 I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society.

post #77 There are countries like you say but where to their morals and social structure come from? It is likely remnants of religion. Originally religion created the ideas and they have been borrowed and altered over time....If they can preserve a core of unbreakable morals then maybe an atheist society can persist over time but it will take something other than atheism to do so.



post #78 Because atheism is lack of belief it is not unifying. They need to have a unifying belief system to deal with stuff that isn't entirely logical such as morals. .... Without it you have just a bunch of angry atheists splitting into smaller and smaller groups due to disagreements in what is important.

post #182 Religious people are raised to believe things like the ten commandments and other things and for the most part they follow them. It's not rocket science. Atheism has no beliefs only the lack of belief. Ok so theism has similar problems however unlike atheists, religions have a core of values and morals that are shared with other similar religions. Atheist values and morality are hilly willy all over the place and atheists don't share a core of values and morals.
eta
Ok not exactly that they don't have shared values and morals which they may have associated with living in communities where religion has existed. But that once removed from the constraints of such a society those values would fade away into chaos with time.



(combined for convenience)

post #88 there isn't meanigful data about these issues ... Skepticism often fails in these situation since we have opinions without data to support it.

post #108

post #109 I continued, "How have you gone this long without hearing that this crap has been debunked? It's one of the cornerstone erroneous arguments that is used to try to debunk evolution. The survival of the fittest is wrongly portrayed as always being self serving therefore if God didn't make us we should all be sociopaths. It didn't dawn on these people that altruistic behavior might have a survival advantage. It also didn't dawn on them to take a look at our animal relatives.

post #112 [directly replying to me] [I]Well I still try to maintain an open mind about things unlike fundamentalist atheists who are happy to stop where they are comfortable.

post #113 In addition if a gorrila did help a child in an instance that doesn't mean much. If you would like me to tell you stories about gorillas killing people who tried to help them I could do so. If you want to say we are no better than gorillas, speak for yourself.

[This is a typical anti-evolutionist sentiment, humans are not primates. But of course, biologically, we are and there is nothing insulting about it. It does not change our worth or humanness to have a common primate ancestor with the great apes.]

post #115 [I]Where ever your morality comes from I find it lacking.

post #122 [I]Hmm lets see.....some one who has no problem making personal attacks on other posters....do you suppose they might not have well developed morals? How about making a post listing a bunch of sources of opinions on morals by a person who cares little about people who disagree with them? It's almost like an appeal to authority except that the poster obviously doesn't have well developped morals so why bother posting it even if it is some kind of dirty distracting trick fitting of their morality?




These 2 came from the previous thread of which Mijo participated so there's no claiming he was unaware of the discussion leading up to this thread.

( again combined for convenience; The following are from the thread the discussion initially began in.) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108466)

post #38 [I]Only a fundamentalist atheist will claim to not have beliefs because that in itself is a fundamental belief.

post #43 Atheists have dogmatic devotion to other beliefs such as that they have no beliefs.

post #50 Do atheists hold strong philosophical or political positions which have no real scientific evidence? Are they unwilling to examine that they may be wrong? Sounds like a fundamentalist to me.

post #55 Has anyone who thinks they have no beleifs bothered to get an unbiased opinion about it?

post #72 What objective evidence have you collected that you have no beliefs? If you say you know this to be evident because you personally know this to be true then how is that different from other beliefs? The idea that you have no no beliefs is just your own personal dogma without objective evidence.

post #91 You haven't read this thread close enough. Go back and re read it. In my opinion the word "beleif" is used by atheists to set themselves as superior and seperate from religious people. Many atheists claim robotic/computerized powers of thinking so much so that they have no closely held thoughts that aren't based on good evidence. If they really want to seperate themselves then they have to demand of themselves a higher level of proof other than their own opinion of something since otherwise the evidence provided for god by religious people would also be sufficient. I doubt that anyone has made any effort to gather objective evidence that they lack beleifs. I just asked for evidence of such and no one has responded (as expected). It seems to me that anyone claiming unequivocally that they have no beleifs qualifies as a fundamentalist atheist.

post #112 People who are sure that they are better than others by virtue of their philosophy or religion without objective data to support that and people who are sure their philosophy/religion is superior to others without objective data to support it would qualify as fundamentalists in my opinion. They rely on fundamental beliefs without questioning them.

post #117 Yes but their emotional aggression doesn't change that they hold beleifs not founded in science.

post #118 I disagree with you. The "strong atheists" are not the same subset as the fundamentalist atheists. Strong atheism only has to do with how sure you are there is no god. Fundamentalist atheists have other beliefs like the idea that they have no beliefs. Or the belief that emotional aggressive discourse with others is somehow good for atheism or is helping other atheists. Or the belief that religion is not needed in the world.

post #138 The problem the atheist fundamentalists have is that athesim hasn't ever been sucessful in society as a stand alone philosophy. So there basically isn't any data about atheistic societies and how well they do. So any beleifs are based on opinions and not fact based. However when you get enough of them together they reinforce each others mistaken beleifs that they are basing their dogma on solid evidence. A bunch of people saying the same thing doesn't make it true.

post #146 This is true except that it hasn't been belabored enough around here yet or people will quit promoting anti-religious dogma. Humanism might be a basis for society but humanism allows people to have religion.

post #151 Nope. But from this forum and from my invovlement in other atheist organizations I would say there are large numbers who wish to stamp out religon (percentage wise I am not sure). I only object to those who aggressively promote anti-relgious dogma.

post #155 [This is where I came in] First, it isn't "dogma". Show me evidence gods exist and I'll adjust my previous conclusions.

Second, "stamping out religion" is poorly framing the concept. A better frame would be to raise the level of critical thinking so that more people came to the conclusion based on the evidence that god beliefs are primitive ways that early humans explained the world around them. Better, careful, and cumulative observations have shown gods beliefs to be human generated myths rather than evidence real gods exist.

post #156 [skep continues] The "I'm OK, you're OK" philosophy has a problem when it comes to religious and cultural beliefs. On the one hand, it serves a useful purpose to not confront such beliefs directly in a multitude of situations. For example, if I want to provide the best medical care for you, that is not the time to confront your irrational beliefs.

But on the other hand, there is a time and a place to promote critical thinking. When in that setting, allowing an exception for certain magical beliefs is really hypocritical. Isn't it hypocritical to debunk something like psychic powers while letting something like the belief in the power of prayer to slide?

post #158 [skep continues] How do you decide to allow religion while condemning homeopathy? Not every believer in homeopathy is taking advantage of someone and not everyone with religion isn't. I have a hard time finding the objective criteria with which to distinguish between the two.

post #161 Whatever anyone believes has no effect on you. Homeopathy is a scam to rip off people but if it could be conducted in a manner where individuals made their own concoctions to be used by themselves then I wouldn't worry about it. If people choose to believe in god it has no effect on you unless they somehow stop you from doing what you want to do.

post #162 It is dogma if you are saying that religion isn't needed. How about forcing others to think the way you do? Or perhaps magically transforming others into skeptics? Not everyone is capable of that. Can't be done.

post #173 [skep continues] So you also think the whole does not affect the individual? Think again. Your medical costs reflect the average. You pay for fraud other people fall for. You suffer the government other people elect.

I can't believe you guys really don't recognize the effect people have on the community that you live in and that it also affects us all.

post #174 [skep answers #162]And as far as forcing, again you re-frame what I've said to suit your own distorted version. Please find where I said anything about "forcing" anyone?

You certainly have an ax to grind here.

I have no qualms about calling religion woo. I see no reason to criticize one form of woo while excusing another. Seems rather hypocritical.

On the other hand, I've said twice now, forcing and legislating social change is not effective. The evidence suggests other approaches work better.

post #184/185 Do you think you can stop all people from thinking what you don't want them to think? Do you think I am not a skeptic? Do you think you are more benficial to the skeptical community than me? Do you think I want to promote woo?

Call it whatever you want. I am not excusing it. What do you offer as an alternative? Nothing but angry arguments so far. Do you think you can brow beat others to agree with you?...

post #186 Do you want to know something about my beliefs? How about this. I think that fundamentalist atheists will continue to hold on to their fundamentalist beliefs once you have shown them the fallacy of their thought processes because those thoughts are fundamental to their belief system.

post #201 Well some religious fundamentalists don't hate atheism or atheists but treat them poorly anyway. Militant atheism might be a better descriptor but it doesn't say anything about the lack of skepticism and dogmatic belief system required to hold that position.

post #205 I am not debating the existence of god merely the required existence of religion. And that religion has never gone away and that anyone thinking it will doesn't have any objective data to support that position. That anyone aggressively attacking religion just because it is religion is self motivated and hasn't thought out the issue or refuses to look at it due to dogmatic beliefs (or they are an idiot).

post #207 I dare you to expose your justification for attacking religion.[at JoeE]

[The exchange continued beyond this but I think this represents the gist of it. To Dd, any reason to work against theism or religion was dogmatic fundamental atheism. And reason it might be desired to eliminate theism and religion was not based on reason, merely on dogmatic atheism.]



And here is the post where Dd confuses atheism with 'a'religionism:

This thread, post #187 Not individually shared but as a group shared by similar religions. There are lots of things such as you as an individual shouldn't kill people. Also you shouldn't cheat or steal or lie. I never said I had proof only that the opposite was not proven either. Humanism is not atheism. Are you claiming humanism is atheism? Humanism is humanism, it is a belief system.


Again Dd speaks as if the 'a'theism excludes beliefs in right and wrong rather than atheism meaning no belief in a god which is what the word means. But even that claim is specious as if not having some organized 'group think' means one has no moral basis.

Blah blah blah. What a long post and no where in that did I say All morals come from theism

[Dogdoctor]

DogDoctor - the thread moved on quite quickly since yesterday and I've not had a chance to read all the posts but I don't think you have responded to my follow-on question, in case you missed it here it is again:



(And of course anyone else agreeing with his conclusions please feel free to bring forward the scientific evidence you used to come to the same conclusions.)

My whole point is there isn't good evidence either way.

[Dogdoctor]

Let me just ask one simple question does anyone disagree that atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s)? If so then nothing arises form atheism other than a lack of belief in god(s). Or are we changing the definition at this point to support some view we have?

[mijopaalmc]

And when someone summarizes another's position, the onus is upon the summarizer to make sure that the summary is correct by providing corroborating evidence from what the person whom the summarizer is summarizing has said.

I don't owe her anything. If she wants to know she can ask instead of printing out her fantasy of me. If she wants to claim that I said something she should quote me and not her strawmen.


I think you may have mistaken my meaning. skeptigirl is the summarizer and you are the summarized; therefore the onus is on her to present evidence that her summary is correct, which includes explanation of her interpretation of the quotes, since that is where we differ now.

[articulett]

I just see the lovely stripes from my ignore list. I'm sure someone will quote them if they have something more to say than "you can't be moral without religion..."

I'm still waiting to here about people made fabulous by religion or how the hell it's moral to refrain from incivility because an invisible guy is watching you?

[mijopaalmc]

I just see the lovely stripes from my ignore list. I'm sure someone will quote them if they have something more to say than "you can't be moral without religion..."

This is and always will be a straw man if it refers to the arguments presented in this thread by Dogdoctor.

[thaiboxerken]

Blah blah blah. What a long post and no where in that did I say All morals come from theism

Then where do morals come from?

[dglas]

Let me just ask one simple question does anyone disagree that atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s)? If so then nothing arises form atheism other than a lack of belief in god(s). Or are we changing the definition at this point to support some view we have?

I disagree with this definition, not because I want to, but because I think it is necessary to do so in order to capture the meaning of theism. I wrote a rather long post about this earlier in this thread (you may or may not have had opportunity to read it), but I note no one, and I mean no one, critiqued it.

I would be delighted to have atheism mean only the unbelief of a content-free empty concept. Sadly, the theists will not permit that. So, I am adapting to their definition; I am accommodating the typical theistic definition of atheism as the denial of their theism (which includes their additional content) - to support some view they have - and which is the basis of their vilification of atheism.

Unless one wishes to try to impose a content-free definition of God on all the theists of the world, I see no alternative. The instant the theists view the atheist unbelief as without implication, I will too. Until then...

After all, I wouldn't want to be accused of trying to impose a vision of theism on theists, now would I?

Of course, even without normative content (warm, comforting father figure stuff or cruel, jealous avenging stuff or anything else), the "existence" of a "non-material" "entity" that somehow "influences" reality still has content. This has implications for our understanding of our own existence and our efficacy within reality. Like it or not, this is simply the case.

The idea that god is an empty concept and that atheism (as the perceived denial of that concept) is therefore empty as well is simply an error.

So, yes, I disagree. What of it? Are you going to declare me dogmatic, because I recognize their understanding as the natural language one and seek to work with it? I'd change it in a heartbeat if I could...

Or, perhaps, you will recognize that you are the one trying to impose an artificially sterile definition that doesn't match the natural language usages. Hope springs eternal...

You, yourself, have chosen to assume additional content in the theistic understanding of God as an order-giver, and you seem to think this is a good thing. Do you want me to point out your particular post I am referring to? I will anyway.


I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society. For instance I would say it is slightly immoral to fight with religious people in most instances because it is self serving and creates ill will and needlessly causes discomfort to others. I am sure others disagree with me on this.

So theists provide order because they do "agree on moral issues [and/or] other simple things needed for a functioning society." But atheists don't and the result would be "chaos" - according to someone calling himself "DogDoctor." Recognize the name?


Blah blah blah. What a long post and no where in that did I say All morals come from theism.

No, not "All." Just enough that without theism society descends into "chaos."


ETA: Actually, I would like to thank DogDoctor and others in this thread who have helped me come to a clearer understanding of the hidden, normative content of the concept of God that is not immediately obvious and that does not allow "atheist" to mean simply a sterile unbelief in an empty concept. I had suspicions before, but now I am about 90% confident about that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Blah blah blah. What a long post and no where in that did I say All morals come from theismGoodness, you certainly fooled me, then.

post #1 atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure).

post #76 I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society.

post #77 There are countries like you say but where to their morals and social structure come from? It is likely remnants of religion. Originally religion created the ideas and they have been borrowed and altered over time....If they can preserve a core of unbreakable morals then maybe an atheist society can persist over time but it will take something other than atheism to do so.

post #78 Because atheism is lack of belief it is not unifying. They need to have a unifying belief system to deal with stuff that isn't entirely logical such as morals. .... Without it you have just a bunch of angry atheists splitting into smaller and smaller groups due to disagreements in what is important.

post #182 Religious people are raised to believe things like the ten commandments and other things and for the most part they follow them. It's not rocket science. Atheism has no beliefs only the lack of belief. Ok so theism has similar problems however unlike atheists, religions have a core of values and morals that are shared with other similar religions. Atheist values and morality are hilly willy all over the place and atheists don't share a core of values and morals.
eta
Ok not exactly that they don't have shared values and morals which they may have associated with living in communities where religion has existed. But that once removed from the constraints of such a society those values would fade away into chaos with time.
In only one sentence here did you say atheists had, "values and morality are hilly willy all over the place and atheists don't share a core of values and morals." But then you corrected yourself. Care to point out here what I missed?

[Skeptic Ginger]

My whole point is there isn't good evidence either way.And you will continue to hold that misconception as long as you refuse to look at the evidence of where morality actually originated from.

Common sense alone should tell you that if something exists there should be evidence of its origin. That is unless you believe it magically appeared or it is simply beyond human comprehension. :rolleyes:

[mijopaalmc]

skeptigirl-

Does "not collecting stamps" or "being bald" provide a moral structure for a society?

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl-

Does "not collecting stamps" or "being bald" provide a moral structure for a society?Not knowing for sure what you are getting at, let me speculate and if I am wrong then perhaps making a more direct comment along with your example would save us time in the future.

I assume you are trying to get at Dd's invalid claim that atheism is a lack of belief and therefore cannot be the basis of anything.

The problem is this is based on more than one absurd underlying premise.

First, the premise that because I don't believe in a magic man in the sky I don't believe in anything is utterly ridiculous. Common sense is all you need to see that one.

By the same token, it is absurd to think that believing in a deity is a basis for morality. I find it hard to believe even theists buy that one. But worse yet is the incongruent claim that one does not believe in gods (Dd's claim) but one believes that morals come from god beliefs. Again, all it takes is common sense and restating the issue to see the problem. Getting away from the ignorant way Dd is using the term, atheist, it makes more sense to say that moral structure is reflected in god myths. After all, if there is no real god as Dd claims his position is (agnostic or atheist, either will do), then that moral structure came from people, not from gods.

Then to jump from that to the conclusion the god beliefs were required for the moral structure to develop is not supported at all by the evidence.

You have the evolutionary biological basis for moral development. You have groups of people living in proximity to each other. You have organization of those groups with sets of rules and norms that facilitate their living in that group. On what basis can you make the claim that god beliefs are required for those group rules and norms? Are you claiming because god beliefs developed those beliefs were required for harmony within the group? Guilt by association? There is not one reason supernatural explanations for natural phenomena should have anything to contribute to moral structure other than moral structure is REFLECTED in god myths.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really?
According to this graph the current global percentage of non-religious + atheists = 14.3%
Let's assume (unjustifiedly) that 5,000 years ago all of humanity was religious. That would mean that for every thousand years the percentage of nr/atheists has increased by 2.86%, on average. This would mean that for the rest of the currently 85.7% of religious people to become nr/atheist you, with your laissez-faire approach to the question, would have to wait 29.96 thousand years, let's say 30,000 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png

Given that you seem to believe that religion is a malign influence in society isn't it a bit irresponsible of you toward your fellow man to just sit back, do nothing, and allow religion to do its damage for tens of thousands of years until a Golden Age of non-belief is finally reached?


These forms of religion were not swapped for non-religiosity/atheism. They were simply supplanted by other, new, forms of religion.


Many theist scientists, past and present, would disagree with you on this.


So you value the Pope's opinion when he 'agrees' with you. Do you value it when the Pope disagrees with you?


So the 'New Atheism' eschews successful marketing techniques?


This reminds me of the faith evolutionists display in their certainty that macro-evolution according to Darwin will one day be observed.


The scientific method is relatively successful when applied to limited aspects of the intersubjective world. It can say nothing conclusive on the existence/non-existence of God. Application of the scientific method implies nothing about the beliefs of the person/s applying it.


more faith statements on your part


none of which have any bearing at all on the question of the existence of God, or the value of religion to society.


Atheism is a lot older than people seem to assume. There were schools of atheism/materialism stretching right back into ancient Indian history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka

The thing is, even after many centuries they have never caught on, and India remains perhaps the most religious society in the world.
Wonder why they never caught on.I haven't had a chance to address all of this but just so you know I wasn't skipping over it, my first comment is how do you know the rate of change is constant? You are not allowing for the rate of change to change. Science is progressing at a logarithmic rate, not a linear rate.

[Mobyseven]

skeptigirl-

Does "not collecting stamps" or "being bald" provide a moral structure for a society?

No. But neither does "collecting stamps" or "having blonde hair". What, pray tell, is your point, considering that none of these things are under discussion?

[Darat]

skeptigirl-

I think that it is fairly obvious from the quotations you posted that Dogdoctor is arguing that the simple belief (or lack thereof) cannot in and of itself provide the basis for the moral structure, rather it is the ancillary dogma and creeds that are said to come from supernatural entities that form said moral basis. I also think that it is evident that theism preceded the explicit atheism*of the modern age, that theism codified (and more importantly, elaborated) evolutionarily encoded morality, and that it is by this theistic codification of evolutionary imperatives that even the modern atheists are influenced when forming their moral outlooks.

*as opposed the implicit atheism of an individual who has never considered

As I asked DogDoctor what scientific evidence did you use to come to these conclusions?

[Darat]

My whole point is there isn't good evidence either way.

Don't you think therefore that you are being hypocritical in dismissing the evidence other people have provided as just being opinion whilst your stated claims you now admit have no foundation in "good evidence" so can't even be called "informed opinion"?

[mijopaalmc]

As I asked DogDoctor what scientific evidence did you use to come to these conclusions?

Do I need to present scientific evidence of the claim that god-belief (or lack thereof) is not inherent to morality?

[mijopaalmc]

Not knowing for sure what you are getting at, let me speculate and if I am wrong then perhaps making a more direct comment along with your example would save us time in the future.

I assume you are trying to get at Dd's invalid claim that atheism is a lack of belief and therefore cannot be the basis of anything.

No. But neither does "collecting stamps" or "having blonde hair". What, pray tell, is your point, considering that none of these things are under discussion?

Well, there is an oft-repeated adage that goes to the effect of "athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby (bald is a hair color)". The point, as I understand it is that "not believing in God/gods" is about as sensible a basis for an ideology/belief system (moral or otherwise) as "not collecting stamps" is a basis for a hobby or "being bald" is for having a hair color. So I don't see what the big to-do about Dogdoctor's claiming that atheism does not provide a moral structure to society is.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, there is an oft-repeated adage that goes to the effect of "athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby (bald is a hair color)". The point, as I understand it is that "not believing in God/gods" is about as sensible a basis for an ideology/belief system (moral or otherwise) as "not collecting stamps" is a basis for a hobby or "being bald" is for having a hair color. So I don't see what the big to-do about Dogdoctor's claiming that atheism does not provide a moral structure to society is.Well why the hell is a belief in a magical being in the sky a "basis for an ideology/belief system"?

Mijo, you seem to be having a hard time recognizing the issue here.

First off, I will say it for about the 4th or 5th time, not believing in magical beings in the sky has absolutely zero, zilch, nada, nothing to do with the rest of a person's beliefs, moral or otherwise.

And second, the premise ones needs to believe in a magical being in the sky in order to form a social framework of ideology and moral beliefs is preposterous.

Finally, I presented a number of sources with evidence morals are innate and begin as a genetically derived framework. No social order, no higher thought processes, no organized social structure is required. Kids are not even capable of the higher order of thinking you are proposing is required for this morality. Think about it. You are claiming some kind of complex thought process is going on in a 4 yr old's mind as he/she philosophizes whether or not to step on the cat's tail.

[Mobyseven]

Well, there is an oft-repeated adage that goes to the effect of "athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby (bald is a hair color)". The point, as I understand it is that "not believing in God/gods" is about as sensible a basis for an ideology/belief system (moral or otherwise) as "not collecting stamps" is a basis for a hobby or "being bald" is for having a hair color. So I don't see what the big to-do about Dogdoctor's claiming that atheism does not provide a moral structure to society is.

Honestly, that's not the primary issue with Dogdoctor's position. Don't get me wrong, it's still an issue, but it's not an issue because it's wrong, it's an issue because it misrepresents what atheists are saying - nobody has made the claim that atheism provides a moral basis, and by actively arguing against that position Dogdoctor promotes the false idea that atheists are arguing that atheism provides (rather than informs) a moral code.

It's a matter of perception, and primarily an annoyance.

The bigger issue is his claim that atheists cannot be moral without religion, that religion is for some reason a requirement for a moral society. That claim is false, and has been corrected many times in this thread, yet it is still cropping up.

[Darat]

Do I need to present scientific evidence of the claim that god-belief (or lack thereof) is not inherent to morality?

You don't need to do anything; all I am asking is for you (or anyone else supporting DogDocotor's uniformed opinions) is to provide the scientific evidence you used to come to those conclusions (and the reason for this is that is the standard of evidence required by DogDoctor).

[mijopaalmc]

Well why the hell is a belief in a magical being in the sky a "basis for an ideology/belief system"?

Mijo, you seem to be having a hard time recognizing the issue here.

First off, I will say it for about the 4th or 5th time, not believing in magical beings in the sky has absolutely zero, zilch, nada, nothing to do with the rest of a person's beliefs, moral or otherwise.

And second, the premise ones needs to believe in a magical being in the sky in order to form a social framework of ideology and moral beliefs is preposterous.

Finally, I presented a number of sources with evidence morals are innate and begin as a genetically derived framework. No social order, no higher thought processes, no organized social structure is required. Kids are not even capable of the higher order of thinking you are proposing is required for this morality. Think about it. You are claiming some kind of complex thought process is going on in a 4 yr old's mind as he/she philosophizes whether or not to step on the cat's tail.

Do you ever get tried of misrepresenting what I say? (It seems to be a staple of your style of argumentation.)

Where did I actually say that "a belief in a magical being in the sky a 'basis for an ideology/belief system'"?

Here is a list of post in which I feel I had something substantive to say about the relationship between atheism and morality:


#229 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3542581#post3542581)
#239 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3542959#post3542959)
#254 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3543487#post3543487)
#264 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3543898#post3543898)
#272 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3544098#post3544098)
#277 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3544280#post3544280)
#294 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3546220#post3546220)
#296 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3546696#post3546696)
#303 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3547533#post3547533)


Feel free to use these or any of my other 32 previous posts in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=1404621) to demonstrate your claims about what I am saying.

[Darth Rotor]

Nice little wall of text,

==followed by a wall of text==

Ain't walls of text grand..?
Only if they help you win powerball. :D

(You left that brick out of your wall.)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I have serious qualms about the idea of shutting up on important issues because someone will be offended or their feelings will be hurt. I mean, did it ever occur to theists that "atheists" might be "hurt" by all the vilification spewed at them by the vast majority of theists?
Name that fallacy.

It may help you win Powerball.

The villification tends to come from a concentrated group, hardlyl the vast majority, but a good sized group nonetheless, who spend more time sounding off than not.

Care to try again?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

What happened to theism and Hitler's morals. The Nazi's were theists...
Really?

How is Fascism a theistic political movement?

Please explain it concisely, rather than in an unfocused rant.

Please be articulate.

DR

[articulett]

Indeed, if the evidence showing that morality evolves and is only--at best--reflected and codified religion, cultures, and governments is not good enough... What would be? And where, pray tell, is the evidence that religion makes anyone more moral.

We all know the faith meme-- it's supposed to make you good and moral and "saved"-- it only stays alive because the faithful presume all the "good people" share their faith, and they agree not to mock the people with differing faiths (in public) in exchange not to have their faithed mocked ... and they all seek to prove to themselves that faith is good and those that don't have it are evil. As soon as they learn you are a non believer... they are taught to see all that is wrong with you rather than hear the message.

The message is this: Faith is not good for anything. It just makes you feel good and moral and saved and special. There is no evidence that "belief" or "respecting belief" or "deferring to belief" is good for morality or anything else. All this bigotry is to avoid hearing just that.

It will be nice when we can just assume everyone is a non believer unless or until they make their beliefs, opinions, or prejudices on the subject known instead of wearing their faith on their sleeve. It will be nice when the faithful are as private about their belief as they want the atheists to be about their lack of it-- oh, and those other believers too... the Muslims, Moonies, Scientologists, Wiccans, Satanists, etc.

Then we can have a rational society where beliefs can be discussed on merit or mocked freely so that humanity can advance unshackled with the brain washing of their youth or culture. The truth has nothing to fear. Nobody needs to fear "lack of belief in gods" any more than they need to fear "lack of belief in Astrology". If people want their opinions and beliefs respected they better back it up with evidence or return the respect to those who don't share their beliefs or opinions. (do "unto others"... try respecting skepticgirl the way you think your opinions should be respected... hers has evidence.... yours is just "words")

We want the freedom to be free of all religions the same way theists want the right to be free from all those "other" religions. Religions are inherently divisive. They encourage their members to see themselves as "chosen", better, "more enlightened", more moral and/or saved. They emphasize belief and faith over rationality and action. They encourage people to offer gifts to invisible being while ignoring the concrete suffering of their fellow humans. If only people could have their merry little faith without needing us to respect it or find it as great as they've been brainwashed to believe it is. If only they didn't need to vilify the atheist to avoid looking at faith itself and their own ugly little biases.

Faiths teach believers to feel persecuted by those who don't believe their woo while they ignore all the woo they don't believe --and the ways they perceive those "others" as deluded

--and they ignore the way their biases make them need to find fault in atheism... either that or they'd have to really examine their own beliefs to see if they may have been fooling themselves -- the truth hurts: they fear being like those deluded people who believe things they find laughable and that their arguments are as flimsy as their characterization of the opposition.

[Darth Rotor]

But when you say "if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos" I have to disagree with you. If you remove the theism, you don't think a new social institution would replace it?
As an aside, you'd cut the problems of global warming considerably, if human activity is the profound influence some think it is.

Religion is, as far as I can tell, about forming a sense of community and providing stable ethic of sorts (kind of a filter so that "morality" doesn't flip-flop faster than a politician at election time). I can't see why another institution couldn't takes its place without the trappings of myth surrounding it.
Then why doesn't one?

Why hasn't one?

(It is my suspicion that the answer lies in human nature, but I'll await your reply.)

DR

[Dogdoctor]

Don't you think therefore that you are being hypocritical in dismissing the evidence other people have provided as just being opinion whilst your stated claims you now admit have no foundation in "good evidence" so can't even be called "informed opinion"?

No . But I think anyone who is sure of the usefulness of religion or lack there of is premature in their assessment. Yes the significance of evidence is not great. So why bicker so bitterly over it?

[Dogdoctor]

8,394 posts (as of the OP) and you are still going on and on, Dd, claiming everyone else thinks this or that, mostly along the same old theme, you claiming to be agnostic and you claiming atheists believe, "that religion should be suppressed".

Yaaaawwwnnnn.... You are told over and over, your attack is against a straw man. Atheists may or may not care to educate and encourage critical thinking, but I've read very few, if any atheist positions here on JREF that theism should be suppressed. Yet on and on you go imagining that is what you read. You again and again claim that is what is said here on JREF despite the fact you would be hard pressed to cite a single atheist here claiming what you claim, that theists should be suppressed.

What are we to conclude from this imaginary persecution you claim is not your personal battle? What are we to conclude about your supposedly valiant fight in the name of the importance of believing in gods that you don't personally believe in?

I conclude that you are a theist in disguise. You are a liar for Jesus despite the fact that bearing false witness is a violation of one of the sacred 10 commandments. You make these claims in some misguided quest despite the fact that Biblical stories include many a hero who stood fast in their beliefs refusing to denounce Jesus or God. You are here persistent in your 8,394 posts in the bizarre belief of something like that you will shame the skeptic community into professing guilt at having challenged the god believers to critically examine their god beliefs.

I don't think so, Dd. No guilt is forthcoming as far as I can see. God beliefs are irrational. Some skeptics challenge them, some give god beliefs a pass. But few if any JREF skeptics have any stake in suppressing any beliefs, be they beliefs in homeopathy or beliefs in magical beings in the sky. Skeptics promote education. They promote critical thinking. Maybe a few of them are political position pushers. But few skeptics, if any, are likely to agree with the position that any beliefs should be suppressed. On that count your imagination has gotten the better of you and your lies for Jesus are showing through your facade.

This is the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem. The poster is sure that if I am a religious person then anything I say can be discounted because of it. If I was a religious person would my logic be any less logical? No. Logic speaks for itself and it doesn't mater where it originates. This type of post indicates intellectual dishonesty. It is dishonest since if people fall for this line of discussion it will result in them being fooled believing something which isn't logical. It shows they care not about truth or lack the knowledge necessary to find truth. I am not religious. This person she created exists only in her own mind and the minds of those she has fooled.

[JoeEllison]

But I think anyone who is sure of the usefulness of religion or lack there of is premature in their assessment.How many more millennia will we need to make an assessment either way, in your opinion?

[Dogdoctor]

Well for starters All morality comes from theism. Without god beliefs one is amoral or is only moral because they learned morality from theists. All the evidence I posted wasn't evidence. It was evidence but not proof. There are no legitimate reasons to promote atheism. Anyone promoting atheism is a fundamentalist atheist blindly being dogmatic about atheism.
This is the logical fallacy known as a straw man. This position that she attributes to me is not me and only exists in her mind or the minds of those she has fooled. It indicates intellectual dishonesty or the lack of ability to weed out truth from reality. Certainly her mind reading powers have failed miserably and instead of admitting she was wrong she goes into a detailed discussion about why she deluded herself.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No . But I think anyone who is sure of the usefulness of religion or lack there of is premature in their assessment. Yes the significance of evidence is not great. So why bicker so bitterly over it?The problem here Dd is not the level of available evidence. It is the quantity of the evidence you seem to be familiar with.

Because you have not read extensively on this topic, no one has?

That's is incredibly naive.

[JoeEllison]

This is the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem. The poster is sure that if I am a religious person then anything I say can be discounted because of it. If I was a religious person would my logic be any less logical? No. Logic speaks for itself and it doesn't mater where it originates. This type of post indicates intellectual dishonesty. It is dishonest since if people fall for this line of discussion it will result in them being fooled believing something which isn't logical. It shows they care not about truth or lack the knowledge necessary to find truth. I am not religious. This person she created exists only in her own mind and the minds of those she has fooled.
That isn't an accurate assessment on your part. The criticism rendered against you isn't based on your religious beliefs. It is based on the quality of your posts, and the logic within them. You've failed to impress, based on your lack of rational and logical posts.

The fact that you claim "ad hominem" to avoid the failings of your posting history, is only further evidence of the legitimacy of the criticism leveled against you.

[Mobyseven]

The above posts by Dogdoctor are examples of posts that, rather than address the claims presented in the quoted posts, simply claim that their opponent has committed a logical fallacy - but then fail to provide justification for their claim.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem. The poster is sure that if I am a religious person then anything I say can be discounted because of it. If I was a religious person would my logic be any less logical? No. Logic speaks for itself and it doesn't mater where it originates. This type of post indicates intellectual dishonesty. It is dishonest since if people fall for this line of discussion it will result in them being fooled believing something which isn't logical. It shows they care not about truth or lack the knowledge necessary to find truth. I am not religious. This person she created exists only in her own mind and the minds of those she has fooled.Since we pretty much all know mind reading is dubious, I can't fault you for imagining I am saying one thing, when I am saying another.

The post in question merely pointed out that for a non-theist, you have quite a number of positions theists have. There are many theists who present themselves as non-theists in forums. It is pretty common.

But just being a theist does not refute your invalid claim that god beliefs (that is what theism is, BTW, not religion or religious beliefs) have anything to do with the vast majority of moral beliefs and decisions. The claim is invalid on its own merits.

[Dogdoctor]

The problem here Dd is not the level of available evidence. It is the quantity of the evidence you seem to be familiar with.

Because you have not read extensively on this topic, no one has?

That's is incredibly naive.

If you're so knowledgeable present some scientific research that proves your position. Not just opinions from authors of books.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is the logical fallacy known as a straw man. This position that she attributes to me is not me and only exists in her mind or the minds of those she has fooled. It indicates intellectual dishonesty or the lack of ability to weed out truth from reality. Certainly her mind reading powers have failed miserably and instead of admitting she was wrong she goes into a detailed discussion about why she deluded herself.This has been addressed in careful detail once and highlighted detail a second time.

[Dogdoctor]

Since we pretty much all know mind reading is dubious, I can't fault you for imagining I am saying one thing, when I am saying another.

The post in question merely pointed out that for a non-theist, you have quite a number of positions theists have. There are many theists who present themselves as non-theists in forums. It is pretty common.

But just being a theist does not refute your invalid claim that god beliefs (that is what theism is, BTW, not religion or religious beliefs) have anything to do with the vast majority of moral beliefs and decisions. The claim is invalid on its own merits.

Still it has no point in this debate. It makes no difference what my position is overall.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you're so knowledgeable present some scientific research that proves your position. Not just opinions from authors of books.Perhaps you should have looked closer at the links and you would have noted references to the supporting research in them. And, I presented other links to direct research.

I don't know who you think you are convincing here but I think most people here (even Mijo) noted that I presented enough evidence to suggest I could support my position. Convincing people wasn't necessary at this point in the discussion.

Present some supporting yours and I'll raise the ante.

[Dogdoctor]

This has been addressed in careful detail once and highlighted detail a second time.
Where you admitted you were wrong?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you ever get tried of misrepresenting what I say? (It seems to be a staple of your style of argumentation.)

Where did I actually say that "a belief in a magical being in the sky a 'basis for an ideology/belief system'"?

Here is a list of post in which I feel I had something substantive to say about the relationship between atheism and morality:


#229 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3542581#post3542581)
#239 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3542959#post3542959)
#254 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3543487#post3543487)
#264 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3543898#post3543898)
#272 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3544098#post3544098)
#277 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3544280#post3544280)
#294 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3546220#post3546220)
#296 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3546696#post3546696)
#303 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3547533#post3547533)


Feel free to use these or any of my other 32 previous posts in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=1404621) to demonstrate your claims about what I am saying.I have not misrepresented what you are saying. It may look that way to you because you are not following the conversation.

Dd claimed theism was responsible for morals. You claimed he was saying something else. I posted a whole bunch of very specific statements made by Dd which said he believed theism was the root of morality.

You seem to be missing the fact I have stayed on the original topic. You are continuing to have a conversation based on your original interpretation of Dd's comments.

If it isn't making sense to you, I suggest you read back through the comments I made that you didn't get Dd's position in the first place.

You might also want to read Darat's comments to you as well.

Also, pay attention to where Dd mixes up theism with religion. I said a number of times that it is the god belief here that is irrelevant to morality. And your comments about atheism not being a source of anything are out of context. Atheists have other beliefs. Atheism is not the absence of all beliefs. It is the absence of belief in gods. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE AND IT IS WHERE BOTH YOU AND Dd ARE MISSING EVERYONE'S POINT.

[Dogdoctor]

I looked at the ones you quoted text from and found no references. In addition it is a book and not the format of a science document (peer reviewed journal). Besides this what if everything they said was true. What does thay prove? That society has no role in morality? I doubt that is what they are saying.

[articulett]

Who cares what you believe or if you are a theist or not Dogdoctor... it's your BS argument that we find fatuous. There is NO evidence that religion makes people more moral in any measurable way. You just assume this is so. On faith. Just like theists. Moreover, much evidence has been presented and reams of it are available which show that morality is inborn to some extent and that religion appears to have nothing to do with it... it can even make it worse. Just because you or others believe or imagine that faith makes people better or moral or is a guidance system-- doesn't make it so! The evidence isn't there. We evolved to be moral creatures... to be programmed by our environment... to imitate others in our culture. We evolved to codify our rules and social codes via decorum and religion and government and laws. Clearly religion has always needed a lot of back up to enforce its "morals"-- threats, torture, promises, salvation, fear, bigoted memes, and social shunning-- Oh, and laws and jails--because it doesn't work.

Religious people all believe that people of their faith are the most moral--they don't want their behavior dictated by other faiths. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Most of us don't want any of our rules and laws dictated by what you or anyone believes their invisible friend wants-- be it Allah, god, or Xenu. We don't find it necessary for morality and we don't find believers more moral than non-believers.

Your argument fails. It's a big fat lie propagated again and again by theists. If you are an agnostic, I can't imagine why you are so beholden to this lie... and so quick to mischarachterize skepticgirl for faults which are far more apparent in you. Should you ever desire to examine your biases, I suggest you look up sexism as well as atheist bigotry. Everyone has biases they may not be aware of--but you sure can't fix them when you are running around making excuses for them and blaming everyone else for misreading your words.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I looked at the ones you quoted text from and found no references. In addition it is a book and not the format of a science document (peer reviewed journal). Besides this what if everything they said was true. What does thay prove? That society has no role in morality? I doubt that is what they are saying.I told you, present evidence that the roots of morality are in theism and I'll add to the evidence I posted.

Let me help you out. You can even just post evidence refuting what I posted. Here are the things which support my position that morality is the product of evolution, not theism as you seem to think. Some morality is actually hardwired in the brain.

The evidence summary: Some moral behavior is observed in non-human primates and large brained sea mammals, none of which would be expected to have god beliefs. Moral sense begins to show up about the age of 4 regardless of the kind of teaching/learning environment a child has been in. Brain damage to specific brain structures and particular brain insults can have a profound impact on moral behavior. The famous Phineas Gage case and fetal alcohol syndrome are examples of brain injuries that affect moral behavior.

You've already claimed these things are not true. Not too many people are taking your opinion over the evidence I posted. So regardless of how convinced you are by the evidence, let's see some evidence besides your opinion that these things are not true.

[articulett]

Dd is laughable... like he'd absorb any information that negated his preciously held belief.

--Like any amount of data would be enough. While he has proffered nothing but blather, hyperbole and ad homs in defense of his inane OP assertions.

[Dogdoctor]

I told you, present evidence that the roots of morality are in theism and I'll add to the evidence I posted.

Let me help you out. You can even just post evidence refuting what I posted. Here are the things which support my position that morality is the product of evolution, not theism as you seem to think. Some morality is actually hardwired in the brain.

The evidence summary: Some moral behavior is observed in non-human primates and large brained sea mammals, none of which would be expected to have god beliefs. Moral sense begins to show up about the age of 4 regardless of the kind of teaching/learning environment a child has been in. Brain damage to specific brain structures and particular brain insults can have a profound impact on moral behavior. The famous Phineas Gage case and fetal alcohol syndrome are examples of brain injuries that affect moral behavior.

You've already claimed these things are not true. Not too many people are taking your opinion over the evidence I posted. So regardless of how convinced you are by the evidence, let's see some evidence besides your opinion that these things are not true.

These summaries ared not inconsistent with my thoughts.

[dglas]

Nice little wall of text,
==followed by a wall of text==
Ain't walls of text grand..?

Only if they help you win powerball. :D

(You left that brick out of your wall.)

DR

I'm an Arf-Newf. I have special dispensation to poke fun at myself. :p
Thanks for focusing on the content though. :)




I have serious qualms about the idea of shutting up on important issues because someone will be offended or their feelings will be hurt. I mean, did it ever occur to theists that "atheists" might be "hurt" by all the vilification spewed at them by the vast majority of theists?

Name that fallacy.

Appeal to pity.
I'm sure you didn't do so intentionally, because you are scrupulously honest about such things, but you missed a small bit of that post that might help put things in context. I quote it here for the personal edification of those who might be inadvertently misled by what, I'm sure, was an innocent error on your part...


Go ahead and vilify me, go ahead and attack me, go ahead and hurt my feelings. There are more important issues at stake than how I feel about this or that topic.

Can't get much clearer than that, can one? ;)


It may help you win Powerball.

There are more ways to Win Powerball!! than are dreampt of in your philosophy, Horatio... :D

The villification tends to come from a concentrated group, hardlyl the vast majority, but a good sized group nonetheless, who spend more time sounding off than not.

Care to try again?

DR

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/02/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist _/

Things that make you go, "Hmmm...."

Guess no atheists get to...
Win Powerball!!!

[articulett]

I am surprised at the vilification that comes on this forum alone. You cannot criticize without them accusing you of worse things than the whatever you may be criticizing. I think faiths have been very heavy handed in making believers fear and distrust atheists-- it's easier than hearing their message:

"We think you guys are as wacky as you think all those other believers are". :)

[NonCleverName]

Why does belief in deities vs no belief in deities really matter when it comes to wanting mankind to live with little suffering as possible? Isn't that something most common-sense driven individuals agree about? Does it matter whether they're atheists or theists? I cannot think of a single non-religious theist I've encountered that brought their god up when talking about political issues such as freedom and equality. Sure, I run into the bible-thumpers or new-age woo fanatics who insists that their god requires a certain law to be passed, but it seems that non-religious theists and nontheists could work together for a cause that benefited mankind without the god interfering with progress.

I think when categorizing mind-sets, it's more about interpretation of reality than it is about belief in deities. For instance, where I work there is a man who believes in one ''omnimax'' type god, but thinks belief in Christmas, Easter, Jesus, The Bible, tradition, superstition, resurrection, belief in the supernatural etc... are stupid and ridiculous. He is a theist, but he shares views on reality that are closer to me, an atheist, than he does our boss, who is a theist, but is a church-going Christian. I also work with a Jewish man who is pretty much your ''general'' new-ager. He believes in all these weird (to me anyway) pseudoscientific and new-age ideas. He is a theist, just like my boss, but he holds views of reality more similar to me in regards to human issues. He is pro-science and treats it with as much respect as his new-age beliefs. He could also easily be described as a humanitarian. His belief in everything supernatural does not seem to hinder his ability to be rational about the importance of reducing human suffering as much as possible.

In my 21 years, I've met a lot of people that were theist and rational. It only seems to be the devout religious types that seem to bring up their god when it comes to everything. But even that does not mean the person can't be rational about social issues and the subject of human suffering.

[thaiboxerken]

Dog, what religion came up with the ideas of freedom of expression, speech, religion and equality of all people?

[articulett]

Why does belief in deities vs no belief in deities really matter when it comes to wanting mankind to live with little suffering as possible?

The OP feels that belief in a deity influences or is the reason for such moral behavior; he thinks that atheists are less moral and that atheism leads to chaos due to their lack of belief in a deity. He provides no evidence for this claim, but it's a common belief of theists--and used to promote fear of and bigotry towards those who dare to say they don't "believe".

I agree that what people "believe in" shouldn't matter. I don't want to care about what people "believe in" any more than they care about what I "believe in". I want to assume that people are not believers unless or until they want me to know that they have faith in something or other... and then I will pass judgement or show respect based on what I think of their belief or opinion and their reasons for proffering it. To me, all "woo" is equal to "Scientology" as far as a baseline of respect... yes, people believe it and it makes them feel good, moral, and "chosen"-- but that's not a reason for me to believe or respect it in any way.

[Darat]

Why does belief in deities vs no belief in deities really matter when it comes to wanting mankind to live with little suffering as possible? Isn't that something most common-sense driven individuals agree about?

...snip...

I think you can drop the "common-sense driven" and just say "most individuals"; in this thread [some] the evidence has been presented that supports that much of what we label "moral" behaviour has nothing to do with a belief in a god or a religious faith and simple arises from our biology. It's not common sense it's biology!

[Darat]

No . But I think anyone who is sure of the usefulness of religion or lack there of is premature in their assessment. Yes the significance of evidence is not great. So why bicker so bitterly over it?

But that was not the claim I asked you to share your evidence for. I was asking what scientific evidence you used to be able to come to the conclusions you made in your opening post and a couple of other post at the start of the thread. Such as:

"....It’s because atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure). ...."


"....Atheists are not cohesive and all have their own ideas of what they think social structure or morality should be like. This is not conducive to building a society. ...."

"....It seems that religion is far superior to atheism for society in providing what people need to live. ...."

"....Religious freedom and tolerance is what makes the USA strong (not elimination of religion). ...."

And so on.

Remember I am only asking you for this evidence since you have stated you would require "scientific" evidence to change your mind and I am therefore assuming that it was "scientific evidence" that you used to form your conclusions.

I will be candid and I say I strongly suspect that you did not form your conclusions by way of scientific evidence and this is why I asked you did you not think you are being hypocritical in regards to requiring a different type of evidence from others from that what you yourself used? (Note I am not calling you a hypocrite, I'm saying your stance on evidence as far as this issue is concerned appears to be hypocritical.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why does belief in deities vs no belief in deities really matter when it comes to wanting mankind to live with little suffering as possible? Isn't that something most common-sense driven individuals agree about? Does it matter whether they're atheists or theists? ....My point was that society as a whole benefits from evidence based thinking. If you only look at theism then who cares? If it makes you feel good, why not?

But if you look at the implications of people without the skills it takes to think critically about the things they encounter in the world, you get people who cannot figure out that the theory of evolution is not in doubt, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 and so on. Even if you go with science but maintain your god belief blind spot, it remains an area where critical thinking is suspended. Because people lack critical thinking skills, they believe false advertisements, they are tricked by politicians, they accept bad science as fact, and so on.

We would be better off as a society if critical thinking skills of the masses were improved. You can't do that as effectively if you leave god beliefs out of that critical thinking plan.

[brodski]

Really?

How is Fascism a theistic political movement? The NAZIs were not fascists, if you're going to get picky, the distinction is especially important if you are to talk about the movement rather than the regimes.


Furthermore the claim as not made that fascism is (or NAZIsm as) a theistic political philosophy, rather that the NSDAP was comprised of, or at least dominated by, theists. The history is there for all to see
MeinKampf contains several references to young earth creationism, for instance. That does not mean that all theists are NAZIs or that all NAZIs are theists, but in Germany in the first half of the 20th century NAZIs where theists.

[NonCleverName]

My point was that society as a whole benefits from evidence based thinking. If you only look at theism then who cares? If it makes you feel good, why not?

But if you look at the implications of people without the skills it takes to think critically about the things they encounter in the world, you get people who cannot figure out that the theory of evolution is not in doubt, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 and so on. Even if you go with science but maintain your god belief blind spot, it remains an area where critical thinking is suspended. Because people lack critical thinking skills, they believe false advertisements, they are tricked by politicians, they accept bad science as fact, and so on.

We would be better off as a society if critical thinking skills of the masses were improved. You can't do that as effectively if you leave god beliefs out of that critical thinking plan.

I agree with what you said. For the record, I am an atheist. I was not defending theism, just questioning whether it had anything to do with the desire to reduce human suffering.

I agree that critical thinking should be applied to everything, and some people give their theistic beliefs a free pass.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The reason I point that out, NonC, wasn't in regard to what you said per se, but rather just reiterating why an anti-theistic position has merit. In this thread and in others many skeptics argue more of a live and let live attitude toward theism. And DogDr has argued religion does good and anti-theism has no rationale other than wanting everyone to believe as you do. I am merely restating my position that theism is a roadblock to promoting rational thought.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm wondering, Dog, since you say skeptigirl has built strawmen.

Do you think a world of atheists could build a system of morality?

[Dogdoctor]

But that was not the claim I asked you to share your evidence for. I was asking what scientific evidence you used to be able to come to the conclusions you made in your opening post and a couple of other post at the start of the thread. Such as:

"....It’s because atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure). ...."


"....Atheists are not cohesive and all have their own ideas of what they think social structure or morality should be like. This is not conducive to building a society. ...."

"....It seems that religion is far superior to atheism for society in providing what people need to live. ...."

"....Religious freedom and tolerance is what makes the USA strong (not elimination of religion). ...."

And so on.

Remember I am only asking you for this evidence since you have stated you would require "scientific" evidence to change your mind and I am therefore assuming that it was "scientific evidence" that you used to form your conclusions.

I will be candid and I say I strongly suspect that you did not form your conclusions by way of scientific evidence and this is why I asked you did you not think you are being hypocritical in regards to requiring a different type of evidence from others from that what you yourself used? (Note I am not calling you a hypocrite, I'm saying your stance on evidence as far as this issue is concerned appears to be hypocritical.)
Do you have evidence to the opposite? I am not saying I have a strong position.
I don't think there is strong evidence because we basically don't understand what makes a strong healthy society or culture. However we do know that so far it hasn't been anti-religious fanaticism.

[Dogdoctor]

I'm wondering, Dog, since you say skeptigirl has built strawmen.

Do you think a world of atheists could build a system of morality?

Individual atheists are capable of building a moral system that probably should work but getting other atheist to believe in them is another story since it will be all about belief since we lack data on what exactly is necessary. We can look at what exists and has make a guess. This has nothing to do with the straw men of me posted on this forum.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I don't think there is strong evidence because we basically don't understand what makes a strong healthy society or culture. However we do know that so far it hasn't been anti-religious fanaticism.To make this claim one would need to be oblivious to the entire scientific fields of anthropology, sociology, and psychology, to name a few.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Individual atheists are capable of building a moral system that probably should work but getting other atheist to believe in them is another story since it will be all about belief since we lack data on what exactly is necessary. We can look at what exists and has make a guess. This has nothing to do with the straw men of me posted on this forum.You are saying that if people don't have god beliefs they have nothing else in common.

Again you make an absurd assumption that only god beliefs unify a group. It is mind bogglingly short sighted.

[dglas]

One has to "believe in" a morality to live morally? :wide-eyed

[SezMe]

However we do know that so far it hasn't been anti-religious fanaticism.
Now, that's just rank. You have no basis to equate atheism with "anti-religious fanaticism" It is, for me personally, quite offensive. To say nothing of being a strawgiant.

[Dogdoctor]

One has to "believe in" a morality to live morally? :wide-eyed

Do you think people behave morally without thinking about it? Without society training them to behave morally? Perhaps they do as well as other animals do (which isn't very well).

[Dogdoctor]

Now, that's just rank. You have no basis to equate atheism with "anti-religious fanaticism" It is, for me personally, quite offensive. To say nothing of being a strawgiant.

I am not speaking out against atheism. I am speaking out against strong anti-religious behavior. By the way your post is a straw man since I am not equating atheism with anti-religious fanaticism.

[Dogdoctor]

To make this claim one would need to be oblivious to the entire scientific fields of anthropology, sociology, and psychology, to name a few.

Ok so tell me what is required for a healthy strong society.

[Dogdoctor]

You are saying that if people don't have god beliefs they have nothing else in common.

Again you make an absurd assumption that only god beliefs unify a group. It is mind bogglingly short sighted.

This is your opinion.

[Darat]

Do you have evidence to the opposite? I am not saying I have a strong position.
I don't think there is strong evidence because we basically don't understand what makes a strong healthy society or culture. However we do know that so far it hasn't been anti-religious fanaticism.

Please Dogdoctor that is an attempt to shift the burden of proof, it is you that has made the claims (and as far as I can see without providing any evidence yet alone the scientific evidence you require of others).

[Tricky]

One has to "believe in" a morality to live morally? :wide-eyed
It is the words "a morality" that should be in quotes. This is greatly imprecise term. There may be groups of morals that tend to be associated together, but no two people have exactly the same morality. So-called "biblical morality" is interpreted in vastly different ways by different Christians.

I have a number of morals that I do believe in. I generally believe murder is bad for humanity. I generally believe generosity is good for humanity. Both of these general statements are highly modified by circumstances and specic details which may change depending on new cases and new evidence.

It is imprecise to speak of "a morality" as if it were a block of stone-carved tablets.

[thaiboxerken]

Individual atheists are capable of building a moral system that probably should work but getting other atheist to believe in them is another story since it will be all about belief since we lack data on what exactly is necessary. We can look at what exists and has make a guess. This has nothing to do with the straw men of me posted on this forum.

So, in short, you're saying a world of atheists would have no moral societies?

Do you have ANY evidence to support your assertion that "belief" is necessary for a group of people to agree on a set of morals?

[dglas]

One has to "believe in" a morality to live morally?

It is the words "a morality" that should be in quotes. This is greatly imprecise term. There may be groups of morals that tend to be associated together, but no two people have exactly the same morality. So-called "biblical morality" is interpreted in vastly different ways by different Christians.

I have a number of morals that I do believe in. I generally believe murder is bad for humanity. I generally believe generosity is good for humanity. Both of these general statements are highly modified by circumstances and specic details which may change depending on new cases and new evidence.

It is imprecise to speak of "a morality" as if it were a block of stone-carved tablets.

Tricky,

I know what I am writing and I have a pretty good idea what I mean when I write it. Thanks anyway....

"Believe in" and "believe that" are not the same thing. I'm trying to stab at the heart of the confusion, rather than just whittle away at the periphery.

As for morality being an entirely private, internal affair ("no two people have exactly the same morality")...if what you said were the case, everyone would be moral and no one would ever be able to say anyone else was not. But our natural language use seems (note the thunderous understatement) to suggest otherwise... In analytic ethics they call this function "universalizability," options for which include more than just absolutism.

Now I know why I don't...
Win Powerball!!!

[James Fox]

It seems to me that there is a clear genetic predisposition toward any number of behaviors including civil behavior. And given that IQ is generally accepted as mostly an inherited trait then it could be reasonable to assume that those predisposed to harmonious group behaviors have been more likely to reproduce in the previous hundreds of thousands of years. Conversely there are other traits that have been supported by social environments and reproductive needs such as competition, (stone age food war = football)) some kinds of aggression (protecting family and tribe) and the never ending desire to reproduce (sex, sex, sex) that don’t always positively effect our current behaviors. Defined morality seems relative for the most part. And we find many features of moral behavior that are consistent throughout history and in most cultures.

In one sense I think that the rational materialist (one who rejects the supernatural) has a leg up on the theist who claims morality from on high in appreciating and understanding the development of moral norms. A rational understanding of anthropology and the development of human civil behaviors speaks volumes about what should be valued, taught and codified in modern societies. The supernatural absolutist must constantly modify the original moral edict or find ways to explain why certain edicts of the past no longer apply. With respect to morals that are personal/private, as opposed to civil and criminal laws, it seems to me that the laws we write are nearly all based on some notions of morality, ethics or long standing social principals. I suppose one could believe in functionality as opposed to morality and end up in the same place.

Lets face it, if we lived under strict Islamic or Deuteronomic law most all of us would have been or will shortly be stoned or burned at the stake.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you think people behave morally without thinking about it?Clearly they do.

Without society training them to behave morally?Most definitely, though environment modifies moral behavior.

Perhaps they do as well as other animals do (which isn't very well).You know so little about animal behavior. It is time you recognized that and did a little more reading about the rules animals instinctually follow in gregarious species.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok so tell me what is required for a healthy strong society.In 25 words or less?

Empathy, common rules, sense of belonging, cooperation, loyalty to group members, ...

There may be more elements not coming to mind at the moment but those are the kind of elements needed.

[articulett]

How can DD keep ignoring the obvious... this is a strong survey done with a bias towards religion and it clearly shows that religiosity is not essential for a healthy society; in fact, it shows that the more secular a society, the greater it's health on numerous measurements.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

Why is this not evidence to DD. Does he just not look at things that don't agree with the view he wants to "sell" so that he can claim there's "no evidence".

There is NO EVIDENCE for his proposition--that's for sure... he hasn't shown any evidence that theism is tied to more moral behavior.,

There is lots of evidence that shows that morality is an inborn tendency based on social cooperation and molded by imitation and environment. We hurt when we make others sad; we feel good when we make them happy. Most of us don't need promises and threat to stay in line... but even if we did, we have laws and social pressures-- because religion never did a very good job at it it seems. We evolved to get along. Maybe religious people aren't as morally developed and think they need an invisible spy to do what's right. The rest of us do what is right because it's "natural". We are happier people when we are decent people. We like ourselves better. That's the only algorithm that needs to be encoded for morality--and it's in our genes-- we start out trusting-- and then reciprocity in kind or "pay it forward". We don't have to understand it... it's encoded in our natures because that is what worked best for our ancestors.

[James Fox]

I agree with articulett in that much of what believers/theists ascribe or presume to be moral behavior is only genetically advantageous personality characteristics with regard to group dynamics that enable a more efficient and productive continuation of the species. By analogy dogs that get along in a pack situation are much more likely to pass on their genes…

[articulett]

I agree with articulett in that much of what believers/theists ascribe or presume to be moral behavior is only genetically advantageous personality characteristics with regard to group dynamics that enable a more efficient and productive continuation of the species. By analogy dogs that get along in a pack situation are much more likely to pass on their genes…

So were wolves that had human like tendencies or got along with humans... that is where our dogs come from. We helped the ones we liked preferentially survive and pass on those likable genes. Humans aren't just good at taming themselves... they like taming other creatures too, it seems--

I used to have a dog that considered himself the park police. If there was any scuffling at the dog park, rough play, or humping-- he would get between the offenders and bark telling them that "we don't allow your kind of behavior here"...

And no one had to tell him to do this... it was something innate. And they all seemed to recognize his "authority" though he was a dog and not a god.

[NonCleverName]

The reason I point that out, NonC, wasn't in regard to what you said per se, but rather just reiterating why an anti-theistic position has merit. In this thread and in others many skeptics argue more of a live and let live attitude toward theism. And DogDr has argued religion does good and anti-theism has no rationale other than wanting everyone to believe as you do. I am merely restating my position that theism is a roadblock to promoting rational thought.

It is a roadblock. I see no difference between the modern idea of deities and the ancient idea of deities. Ancient deities were used to explain aspects of nature that were, at the time, unknown. Today's deities are used to explain aspects of nature that are, at the time, unknown. No difference here. How someone can be educated in the history of gods/goddesses and religion, but still believe in gods, is strange to me.

[Dogdoctor]

Clearly they do.

Most definitely, though environment modifies moral behavior.

You know so little about animal behavior. It is time you recognized that and did a little more reading about the rules animals instinctually follow in gregarious species.

I know about animals. What you don't know is people. Non human animals are pretty much hardwired for anything important. They have instincts that tell them what to do. Instincts are automatic, not requiring thought and they are unable to alter their behavior. They get a stimulus they respond in the same manner today , tomorrow, next year, always. Humans have nothing resembling that. Whatever genetic code they inherited they can alter their behavior to suit their thoughts. They have no instincts.
eta: By the way this is another ad hominem. As a skeptic you should learn not to use these errors in logic and if you can't learn to discuss things with me without them I will quit responding to you.

[Dogdoctor]

In 25 words or less?

Empathy, common rules, sense of belonging, cooperation, loyalty to group members, ...

There may be more elements not coming to mind at the moment but those are the kind of elements needed.

If you have a group of people say like the citizens of the USA. Within that you have subgroups. One group says to the others we know what is true , If you agree with us we will help you but if not then you are all idiots and unworthy of our consideration. What happens is you loose unity. Suddenly there are unsurmountable barriers between the two groups. Yeah so cooperation isn't there neither is loyalty or belonging. Also that attittude show a lack of empathy.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know about animals. What you don't know is people. Non human animals are pretty much hardwired for anything important. They have instincts that tell them what to do. Instincts are automatic, not requiring thought and they are unable to alter their behavior. They get a stimulus they respond in the same manner today , tomorrow, next year, always. Humans have nothing resembling that. Whatever genetic code they inherited they can alter their behavior to suit their thoughts. They have no instincts.
eta: By the way this is another ad hominem. As a skeptic you should learn not to use these errors in logic and if you can't learn to discuss things with me without them I will quit responding to you.I think trying to tell someone with a master's degree in nursing and an awful lot of years of experience that they don't know people is more of an ad hom than what I posted. But no matter, I already posted the evidence supporting my position. You ignored it, posted none of your own, and now have returned to your original unsupported position.

No no, Dd, I'm not falling for this mulberry bush roundabout.

Children exhibit morals before being taught and despite inconsistent teaching and despite cultural influences. Those moral choices are altered by higher thought processes of learning, but the underlying foundation is demonstrably there.

The root of moral evolution is found in gregarious animal species.

And there is no evidence god beliefs have more than a minimal impact on moral behavior.

And you have provided no evidence to contradict any of this while I have provided evidence of my conclusions.

Just waiting a while and repeating your old claims doesn't improve your position.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you have a group of people say like the citizens of the USA. Within that you have subgroups. One group says to the others we know what is true , If you agree with us we will help you but if not then you are all idiots and unworthy of our consideration. What happens is you loose unity. Suddenly there are unsurmountable barriers between the two groups. Yeah so cooperation isn't there neither is loyalty or belonging. Also that attittude show a lack of empathy.This is rubbish.

[brodski]

If you have a group of people say like the citizens of the USA. Within that you have subgroups. One group says to the others we know what is true , If you agree with us we will help you but if not then you are all idiots and unworthy of our consideration. What happens is you loose unity. Suddenly there are unsurmountable barriers between the two groups. Yeah so cooperation isn't there neither is loyalty or belonging. Also that attittude show a lack of empathy.

Do you believe you are describing the religious or the irreligious with this statement?

[thaiboxerken]

I know about animals. What you don't know is people. Non human animals are pretty much hardwired for anything important. They have instincts that tell them what to do. Instincts are automatic, not requiring thought and they are unable to alter their behavior. They get a stimulus they respond in the same manner today , tomorrow, next year, always. Humans have nothing resembling that. Whatever genetic code they inherited they can alter their behavior to suit their thoughts. They have no instincts.
eta: By the way this is another ad hominem. As a skeptic you should learn not to use these errors in logic and if you can't learn to discuss things with me without them I will quit responding to you.

Do you think you can provide some scientific evidence to support this? I doubt your assertion that humans have no instincts.

[NonCleverName]

I know about animals. What you don't know is people. Non human animals are pretty much hardwired for anything important. They have instincts that tell them what to do. Instincts are automatic, not requiring thought and they are unable to alter their behavior. They get a stimulus they respond in the same manner today , tomorrow, next year, always. Humans have nothing resembling that. Whatever genetic code they inherited they can alter their behavior to suit their thoughts. They have no instincts.
eta: By the way this is another ad hominem. As a skeptic you should learn not to use these errors in logic and if you can't learn to discuss things with me without them I will quit responding to you.

Humans don't have instincts? :confused: So humans don't feel impulses to feed or mate?

[NonCleverName]

Double post.

[articulett]

DD, it's religious people who claim divine truths... and these truths don't agree with one another. Atheists don't believe in "divine truths" for the most part. It's the theists who think those who don't believe as they do are "fools"-- they are the ones who think "do unto others" means just those who believe as you do.

You are the king of buffoonish irony.

[HghrSymmetry]

Rating?

[Dogdoctor]

I think trying to tell someone with a master's degree in nursing and an awful lot of years of experience that they don't know people is more of an ad hom than what I posted. But no matter, I already posted the evidence supporting my position. You ignored it, posted none of your own, and now have returned to your original unsupported position.

No no, Dd, I'm not falling for this mulberry bush roundabout.

Children exhibit morals before being taught and despite inconsistent teaching and despite cultural influences. Those moral choices are altered by higher thought processes of learning, but the underlying foundation is demonstrably there.

The root of moral evolution is found in gregarious animal species.

And there is no evidence god beliefs have more than a minimal impact on moral behavior.

And you have provided no evidence to contradict any of this while I have provided evidence of my conclusions.

Just waiting a while and repeating your old claims doesn't improve your position.

Name a moral behavior that humans are hardwired for.

[articulett]

Rating?

8.8

[Dogdoctor]

Humans don't have instincts? :confused: So humans don't feel impulses to feed or mate?

I meant to say hardwired instincts which was the definition of instincts as I learned it long ago. Humans have drives or tendencies but all are secondary to our thoughts.

[Dogdoctor]

Do you believe you are describing the religious or the irreligious with this statement?

There are elements from both sides that would fit this description.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Name a moral behavior that humans are hardwired for.The hard wired emotion of empathy also equates to, hurting someone is wrong.

[thaiboxerken]

It's not really productive to play his game. He'll simply dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't support his belief. He's a true believer.

[HghrSymmetry]

8.8

Agreed.

:p

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not really productive to play his game. He'll simply dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't support his belief. He's a true believer.That is true for so many people on the board and elsewhere. It fascinates me.

[NonCleverName]

I meant to say hardwired instincts which was the definition of instincts as I learned it long ago. Humans have drives or tendencies but all are secondary to our thoughts.

Mating is a hardwired instinct. We do not think to ourselves one day, ''Hmmmm, I want to be attracted to the female sex and deposit my semen into her.'' When we (males) reach puberty, all we know is ''God damn, she looks good! I have an urge to touch her for some reason...''

Perhaps we can think, or observe, our instinctual drive of mating. We can decide whether or not to have sex with someone, but the drive is instinctual. There are females of non-human animals that will stick by an injured mate, even if other healthier and stronger males attempt to lure her away. If you are going to claim that humans are the only animals that exhibit this behavior, you're going to run into a lot of trouble.

[Dogdoctor]

The hard wired emotion of empathy also equates to, hurting someone is wrong.
If it was hard wired we would never hurt others or lack empathy for others.

[Dogdoctor]

Mating is a hardwired instinct. We do not think to ourselves one day, ''Hmmmm, I want to be attracted to the female sex and deposit my semen into her.'' When we (males) reach puberty, all we know is ''God damn, she looks good! I have an urge to touch her for some reason...''

Perhaps we can think, or observe, our instinctual drive of mating. We can decide whether or not to have sex with someone, but the drive is instinctual. There are females of non-human animals that will stick by an injured mate, even if other healthier and stronger males attempt to lure her away. If you are going to claim that humans are the only animals that exhibit this behavior, you're going to run into a lot of trouble.

We can choose to not respond to our sexual urges (some of us anyway). It's not hard wired.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If it was hard wired we would never hurt others or lack empathy for others.No, Dd, that is not how it works. My dogs are hardwired to hunt but I can teach them not to.

And even with hardwiring there is considerable variation between individuals.

[Skeptic Ginger]

We can choose to not respond to our sexual urges (some of us anyway). It's not hard wired.So gays choose to be gay? That is pure nonsense.

[Dogdoctor]

So gays choose to be gay? That is pure nonsense.
You have a strong opinion about this. Do you have (strong) evidence that supports your strong opinion? Also this is another strawman.

[Dogdoctor]

No, Dd, that is not how it works. My dogs are hardwired to hunt but I can teach them not to.

And even with hardwiring there is considerable variation between individuals.
Your dogs can be conditioned to respond differently if you train them to. Your dog has no choice. You have a choice.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Dd, it is difficult to discuss things with you because of your narrow view of reality and your lack of education about just how the brain works, what "hard wired" actually means and a number of other things. It is one thing to discuss intelligent divergent views of the world, it is quite another to argue things with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Take it as snobbery, I don't care at this point. If you wish to have an intelligent discussion of something, you will simply have to start by educating yourself. There is no nicer way to put it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.thebigview.com/mind/free-will.htmlWe have discussed the classical views on free will and determinism. In the meantime, science has gained more insight into the psychological and physiological aspects of decision making. The classical arguments of determinism and libertarianism are still valid, but they neither shed much light on the psychology of decision making, nor on the internal neural workings of decision making. An important modern concept is the subconscious. The subconscious is the part of the mind that operates and processes information outside the focus of awareness. Over the past decades, psychologists have collected convincing evidence not only for its existence, but also for the fact that the vast majority of information that our bodies receive is processed subconsciously, which means without us being aware of it. The subconscious mind can thus be likened to a workhorse with massive parallel processing power and the conscious mind can be likened to a narrowly focused high-energy beam. Both parts of mind are thoroughly connected and operate together as a whole. Decision making can take place either consciously or subconsciously, or perhaps also semi-consciously. What does this imply in view of free will?

Intuitively we might say that subconscious decisions are unfree or to a lesser degree free than conscious decisions. We tend to think that only conscious decisions can be called free, because only these involve reasoning processes, or what we call rational thought. Since rational thinking does not take place subconsciously, subconscious decisions happen mechanically and are therefore in some way predetermined by the existing mental programs and memories. In this regard, subconscious decisions aren't much different from the heartbeat and from other autonomic functions. But what about conscious decision making? Before we discuss this question, we must first ask another question, namely whether decisions generally originate consciously or subconsciously. What about conscious behaviour, like moving an arm, for example? Brain studies have shown that movement, which is controlled by the motor cortex, is preceded by the build-up of an electrical potential in the brain called “readiness potential”. Notably, this readiness potential builds up before the person becomes aware of their intention to move. This observation suggests that volition (to move a body part) takes its beginning in the subconscious mind. Only when there is a sufficient potential becomes the volitional impulse conscious. What are the implications? Do all decisions originate unconsciously? Are we causality-driven robots with the luxury of ex post awareness?



Epistemology, Consciousness, and the Mind (http://www.lycaeum.org/drugs.old/other/brain/) contains a lot of interesting links to how the mind works.

I'm afraid you have a big task ahead of you if you really want to understand the stuff you are trying to discuss in this thread.

[Dogdoctor]

Dd, it is difficult to discuss things with you because of your narrow view of reality and your lack of education about just how the brain works, what "hard wired" actually means and a number of other things. It is one thing to discuss intelligent divergent views of the world, it is quite another to argue things with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Take it as snobbery, I don't care at this point. If you wish to have an intelligent discussion of something, you will simply have to start by educating yourself. There is no nicer way to put it.

You obviously have strong opinions about the topics we discuss but your arguments fall into appeals to authority, straw men and ad hominems.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No they do not, Dd. They fall into educated responses tired for the moment in dealing with uneducated responses. The fact you cannot see that is not my problem.

[CFLarsen]

No, Dd, that is not how it works. My dogs are hardwired to hunt but I can teach them not to.

Absolutely never hunt, ever again?

[Darat]

If it was hard wired we would never hurt others or lack empathy for others.

Do animals never fall over?

[a_unique_person]

So I have some new thoughts about skepticism, religion and JREF forums. Many of you probably know I am an agnostic who thinks religion is important (not for me but for others). Long ago when I first started here I posted about my thoughts and was overwhelmed with all kinds of attacks on both me and my thoughts.. So I have sat and watched others and realized that there really isn’t good evidence for my beliefs. I also realized that others acted as though the opposite was true, that religion should be suppressed. After a while I realized there is no good evidence for that either and in fact if you were impartial and not influenced by what you want to be true, it seems that I am in deed right.
Atheists want to believe that atheism is better than religion yet studying history it doesn’t appear to be. Atheism is still uncommon in the world and religion has survived any attempts by atheists to eliminate it. Why is this? It’s because atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure). Atheists are not cohesive and all have their own ideas of what they think social structure or morality should be like. This is not conducive to building a society. It seems that religion is far superior to atheism for society in providing what people need to live. Religious freedom and tolerance is what makes the USA strong (not elimination of religion). Freedom seems to be an important factor in healthy societies. Repression of religion hasn’t ever worked.

If atheists are the majority of a democratic population then they can decide what ever they agree on for morals and social structure. If the majority of the population is religious then for atheists to get changes made they need to enlist the help of religious people.
Those who choose to be aggressive to religious people not only are to a large extent unsuccessful in changing minds they are also successful in loosing any support religious people might give them. Heck I am an agnostic and I don’t support that type of behavior and I am sure many atheists also feel likewise (forget about religious people).
It all boils down to this, religion has been around a long time and will likely persist for a long time to come. Aggressive in your face arguing with religious people will create more enemies than friends. There is no reason to suspect that aggressively attacking religion will help in any meaningful way.

A clue to those who are hopelessly lost in trying to avoid personal attacks. If you don't mention or infer a particular poster, you will do well in avoiding personal attacks. The poster is not their arguments so there is no need to discuss the poster at all. If you have anything to say about me pm me. Rip my arguments apart if you can but leave me out of it.

"The Ascent of Man" touches on religion. It was a necessary step in our path from primitive to whatever comes after that. We became self-conscious, and immediately realised that our very short, brutish and troubled lives were pointless. Most of our children died, before they even passed childhood, for example. Religion gave all that suffering a point. It allowed us to cope with that pain. Now it's time to move on to the next stage. If we live in a modern society with good health care and living standards, all our children live to be adults. What comes next? It's a good question, and one we have only started to answer.

[a_unique_person]

Absolutely never hunt, ever again?

It's an interesting point. A popular media Vet over here, Hugh Wirth, is fond of constantly reminding us after dog attacks, that dogs are inherently wild, no matter how much we train them. They can revert at any time. Of course, some breeds more than others. He want's Pit Bulls and like breeds banned because of the probability that they will revert.

[NonCleverName]

We can choose to not respond to our sexual urges (some of us anyway). It's not hard wired.

You're missing what I'm saying. The urge is instinctual. We do not think our sexual urges into existence, they are hardwired in our brains. I said we can choose not to have sex, but it does not change the fact that the urge itself is hardwired.

I don't understand the point, however, in bringing this up. Humans are not the only species that deny sex.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Absolutely never hunt, ever again?Don't tell me you actually agree with me? Or is it that you don't have a clue that was my point. Their hunting behavior is hard wired. It is Dd who seems to think the ability to overcome something hard wired means it isn't hard wired.

[CFLarsen]

Don't tell me you actually agree with me? Or is it that you don't have a clue that was my point. Their hunting behavior is hard wired. It is Dd who seems to think the ability to overcome something hard wired means it isn't hard wired.

I am asking you if you can train your dogs never to hunt again. Never, ever, absolutely, definitely never.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am asking you if you can train your dogs never to hunt again. Never, ever, absolutely, definitely never.What does this have to do with the thread topic, and why do you think I would answer yes to that?

Here you are again, Claus arguing some irrelevant sidetrack and in this case you still don't even recognize that I'm the one saying the hunting behavior is hardwired in my dogs. I only said you could overcome that hardwiring yet it was still hardwired because Dd claimed that if you could overcome any behavior that alone proved it was not hardwired behavior.

Of course the instinct would still underlie the training to suppress it. One would not have to override the instinct forever to make the point I was making. So your question is yet another non sequitur.

[Dogdoctor]

"The Ascent of Man" touches on religion. It was a necessary step in our path from primitive to whatever comes after that. We became self-conscious, and immediately realised that our very short, brutish and troubled lives were pointless. Most of our children died, before they even passed childhood, for example. Religion gave all that suffering a point. It allowed us to cope with that pain. Now it's time to move on to the next stage. If we live in a modern society with good health care and living standards, all our children live to be adults. What comes next? It's a good question, and one we have only started to answer.

What does come next? At this point it doesn't appear that intolerance to religon is what comes next.

[Dogdoctor]

You're missing what I'm saying. The urge is instinctual. We do not think our sexual urges into existence, they are hardwired in our brains. I said we can choose not to have sex, but it does not change the fact that the urge itself is hardwired.

I don't understand the point, however, in bringing this up. Humans are not the only species that deny sex.

When an animal has a sexual urge they act on it. Or at least as far as we can tell they react as if they have no choice or decision to make. When a human has a sexual urge they may not act on it. They may think that they have no chance of succeeding and would be embarrassed or arrested if they tried to act on it. They may think that the person who they are attracted to is too young or otherwise emotionally disabled and not act on it. What other species makes choices about their sexual urges?

[Skeptic Ginger]

... They may think that the person who they are attracted to is too young or otherwise emotionally disabled and not act on it. What other species makes choices about their sexual urges?Once again, animals make a lot of choices about their sexual urges. If they feel harm will come to them if they try, they defer to the more powerful animal. How does that choice differ all that much from a human decision? There are consequences and a decision made based on the consequences.

[RandFan]

IMHO, this is one of those areas where people aren't really arguing since they don't share the same usage of the word they are arguing about.

Usage #1: Any hardwired physiological response to external stimuli i.e. increased heart rate and blood pressure, sexual arousal, fear (flight or fight).

Usage #2: Fixed action patterns that are not overridden by cognitive processes.

Words aren't fixed laws that govern the universe. Dictionaries don't really define words so much as they tell us their usage.

http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/instinct

1: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>

2 a: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b: behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

[Dogdoctor]

Once again, animals make a lot of choices about their sexual urges. If they feel harm will come to them if they try, they defer to the more powerful animal. How does that choice differ all that much from a human decision? There are consequences and a decision made based on the consequences.

How do you know this?

[a_unique_person]

What does come next? At this point it doesn't appear that intolerance to religon is what comes next.

It would mean the end of religion.

[articulett]

Yes, humans show a pattern of correcting their superstitions and biases as science reveals the truth over time. It may take a while, but we are increasingly a less superstitious and more civil species compared to our ancestors... this makes religion something that will fade like Zeus or evolve into the gathering of people worshipping an increasingly nebulous god for increasingly vague reasons.

Atheists don't need to eradicate religion anymore than skeptics need to eradicate astrology-- educating people and treating superstitions and inane opinions with the respect they deserve tends to do the job all by itself over time. Facts accumulate evidence... they work better than superstitions. Religious people imagine themselves as more moral without producing any evidence that this is the case. They imagine they get along better because of religion though the evidence shows that reciprocity and social behavior is hard wired and further programmed via culture--not worship and fear of invisible men in the sky.

[NonCleverName]

When an animal has a sexual urge they act on it. Or at least as far as we can tell they react as if they have no choice or decision to make. When a human has a sexual urge they may not act on it. They may think that they have no chance of succeeding and would be embarrassed or arrested if they tried to act on it.
They may think that the person who they are attracted to is too young or otherwise emotionally disabled and not act on it. What other species makes choices about their sexual urges?

Depending on the species, a female member may find a certain male does not display the proper colors or have the proper physical attributes, therefore she does not mate with him. I see no difference here.

[Dogdoctor]

Depending on the species, a female member may find a certain male does not display the proper colors or have the proper physical attributes, therefore she does not mate with him. I see no difference here.

Was that particular animal sexually stimulated and then failed to respond? At any rate what I was talking about is instinctive behavior not feelings or urges.

[NonCleverName]

Was that particular animal sexually stimulated and then failed to respond?

The same way a human may be interested at first but ''fails to respond'' because of some other factor. If a man is sitting down and looks like a great potential mate, but stands up to reveal he is 4'8'' and the woman loses her attraction towards him, then how is that different from some non-human animal who hears a mating call, and arrives only to see the animal wanting to mate does not possess the desirable physical attributes? All you're saying is that because we have a subjective experience which interprets and tries to make sense out of everything we sense, we are different. The behavior is the same, but you are claiming because we think about it, we're different. How many non-human animal head's have you been in? Are you saying no animal has anything resembling a subjective experience, not even on a small level?

At any rate what I was talking about is instinctive behavior not feelings or urges.

If I am attracted towards a girl and walk up to her and introduce myself and do all that flirting and small talking ****, then I am exhibiting instinctual mating behavior. The tradition, rituals and methods may differ culture to culture, but it's the instinctual drive that leads me to seek a mate.

[articulett]

A couple of examples of animals exhibiting morality across species...

No religion involved...

E51DyWl_q0c

Xr1pWzoLvT8

We're not the only mammals that have evolved to care about the vulnerable... and to care about those who have cared for us. If you cannot realize this after viewing these tapes then your need to believe that religion is responsible for moral behavior is affecting your ability to reason and weigh the
evidence.

Religion reflects instincts that were there in the first place... it aims to codify them, and hone them--but there is no evidence that it does so. It seems to make people feel more moral without actually being more moral. As such, it is rather "immoral"-- a mind game-- an illusion. And it can have horrific consequences. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109836&page=4

[articulett]

Well will you look at that... chimps figuring out whose a good guy and whose a bad guy without religion.... imagine that!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326095411.htm

Chimpanzees make judgments about the actions and dispositions of strangers by observing others’ behavior and interactions in different situations. Specifically, chimpanzees show an ability to recognize certain behavioral traits and make assumptions about the presence or absence of these traits in strangers in similar situations thereafter.

Character judgments are an essential feature of cooperative exchanges between humans, and we use them to predict future behavioral interactions. A system for attributing reputation is therefore expected in any species which needs to assess the behavior of others and to predict the outcomes of future interactions. Chimpanzees have sophisticated social skills and there is evidence that primates eavesdrop and benefit from third-party interactions. Could they have a system for forming reputation judgments across a wide variety of contexts like humans?

Another point on the side for "morality is inborn"-- it evolves... no religion is necessary. Brand new news... you too can get a clue Dogdoctor, so long as you don't keep presuming that you already know all there is to know on the subject. So where is the evidence that religion facilitates moral behavior again?

And just look at all the other articles on that same page showing cooperative behavior amongst are closest irreligious relatives. Amazing! Ah, but this isn't evidence is it? --Just your "opinion" is evidence to you.

[Dogdoctor]

The same way a human may be interested at first but ''fails to respond'' because of some other factor. If a man is sitting down and looks like a great potential mate, but stands up to reveal he is 4'8'' and the woman loses her attraction towards him, then how is that different from some non-human animal who hears a mating call, and arrives only to see the animal wanting to mate does not possess the desirable physical attributes? All you're saying is that because we have a subjective experience which interprets and tries to make sense out of everything we sense, we are different. The behavior is the same, but you are claiming because we think about it, we're different. How many non-human animal head's have you been in? Are you saying no animal has anything resembling a subjective experience, not even on a small level?

Whatever behavior we may have genetically coded it is only exhibited if we either don't think or we want to behave that way anyway. Is height a requirement for mating? Such criteria are likely cultural or personal choices.


If I am attracted towards a girl and walk up to her and introduce myself and do all that flirting and small talking ****, then I am exhibiting instinctual mating behavior. The tradition, rituals and methods may differ culture to culture, but it's the instinctual drive that leads me to seek a mate.

Small talk and flirting is all cultural. You can not flirt also so it isn't as if you have no choice. On the other hand animals for the most part work on instinctual behaviors not just urges so instead of just having an urge to mate they attempt to mate every time. This would matter if you are talking about inherited moral behavior. If the behavior is not
automatic then the moral urges won't necessarily result in moral actions. For instance if you inherit empathy toward you fellow humans but philosophically you hate certain people because they are a different race or religious then you won't have empathy for them.

[Dogdoctor]

Well will you look at that... chimps figuring out whose a good guy and whose a bad guy without religion.... imagine that!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326095411.htm

Chimpanzees make judgments about the actions and dispositions of strangers by observing others’ behavior and interactions in different situations. Specifically, chimpanzees show an ability to recognize certain behavioral traits and make assumptions about the presence or absence of these traits in strangers in similar situations thereafter.

Character judgments are an essential feature of cooperative exchanges between humans, and we use them to predict future behavioral interactions. A system for attributing reputation is therefore expected in any species which needs to assess the behavior of others and to predict the outcomes of future interactions. Chimpanzees have sophisticated social skills and there is evidence that primates eavesdrop and benefit from third-party interactions. Could they have a system for forming reputation judgments across a wide variety of contexts like humans?

Another point on the side for "morality is inborn"-- it evolves... no religion is necessary. Brand new news... you too can get a clue Dogdoctor, so long as you don't keep presuming that you already know all there is to know on the subject. So where is the evidence that religion facilitates moral behavior again?

And just look at all the other articles on that same page showing cooperative behavior amongst are closest irreligious relatives. Amazing! Ah, but this isn't evidence is it? --Just your "opinion" is evidence to you.

The question is the apparent judment an inherited behavior or is it rational thinking? It is likely that animal closer to us will have some thought invovled however obviously no where near the amount as in humans. If you want to live under the same moral code as chimpanzees then I can see why you made this post.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you know this?How is it you do not know it?

I've already posted sources of my claims in this thread, Dd and you have yet to do so. Why should I look up anything else for you when you don't bother reading any of it? You have yet to address what I did post other than to dismiss it choosing to remain ignorant. I have no evidence you will not just do the same again.

Once again, Dd, you are simply declaring unsupported claims and acting as if you are making convincing arguments. Seriously, the only person here you have convinced is yourself.

Why not take a survey and see who thinks you've made a case for your beliefs?

[Dogdoctor]

How is it you do not know it?

I've already posted sources of my claims in this thread, Dd and you have yet to do so. Why should I look up anything else for you when you don't bother reading any of it? You have yet to address what I did post other than to dismiss it choosing to remain ignorant. I have no evidence you will not just do the same again.

Once again, Dd, you are simply declaring unsupported claims and acting as if you are making convincing arguments. Seriously, the only person here you have convinced is yourself.

Why not take a survey and see who thinks you've made a case for your beliefs?

One thing about logic is that it doesn't require a consensus. Here is a link to the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/index.html). Go there and read the entire science section and you will find much data that proves my point.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not when you are content in your ignorance, it certainly doesn't.

My question wasn't about who agreed with you as support you were right. I know you are not right. My question was about who did you think you were convincing with your unsupported declarations of truth?

[NonCleverName]

Whatever behavior we may have genetically coded it is only exhibited if we either don't think or we want to behave that way anyway. Is height a requirement for mating?

In humans, the taller and bigger the male, the more protection he appears to offer. Of course a small man with a lot of money would have just as much sexual success, but money is still a symbol of strength.

Such criteria are likely cultural or personal choices.

Cultural things are taught. Personal choices? Choices are often influenced by other humans.

Small talk and flirting is all cultural. You can not flirt also so it isn't as if you have no choice.

As I said in my last post, the methods we use will differ from culture to culture, but these cultural methods exist because of previously existing instincts. No mating = no flirting.

On the other hand animals for the most part work on instinctual behaviors not just urges so instead of just having an urge to mate they attempt to mate every time.

What about a partner who stays beside an injured mate, ignoring strong and healthy males who would be better suited for survival? Animals appear to be exhibiting behavior that is not as black and white as you would like to believe.

Don't forget Articulett's video links.

This would matter if you are talking about inherited moral behavior. If the behavior is not
automatic then the moral urges won't necessarily result in moral actions. For instance if you inherit empathy toward you fellow humans but philosophically you hate certain people because they are a different race or religious then you won't have empathy for them.

An animal's behavior can be modified if it's environment is changed. All you are saying here is people can be influenced by their environment. So what?

All cultural customs and religions come from people. They are products of human nature, therefore if someone behaves according to a cultural custom or religion, they are behaving like a human would be expected to behave.

To address your original point: Religion can appear to be good and bad.

Religion is simply a way in which man understands and expresses his existence. So, just like humans are ''good'' and ''bad'', religion is ''good'' and ''bad'' as well.

So to argue that religion is exclusively good or bad is ridiculous. Except, however, when it comes to critical thinking. Religion and deities can get in the way when one attempts to build a world view using logic. How logical is it to believe in deities, when it's obvious they were created to explain things that man can't explain?

[Dogdoctor]

An animals behavior maybe modified if it's environment was changed. A human may modify their behavior without environmental changes. If you have a robot which is programmed to behave morally is it moral? I say that morality implies making a choice. If you have no choice but to behave as you do then you can't help but do what you do and there is nothing good or bad about what you do. You would just be like a robot (or like other animals) and anything you do is the product of your genetics. Is anyone saying that people have no choice? In addition to choice people can debate about what is moral or not and modify their behavior in accordance with what they decide. Other animals can't do that. While it may be that other animals perhaps like chimpanzees may have some choice involved in their moral decisions we can't tell how much and because of their lack of a complex language they cannot discuss morality. People debating about morality is why what we consider moral changes over time. This is the evolution of our morality which isn't a genetic evolution but one of understanding. As our understanding of the world changes so does what we consider moral and immoral.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do your moral choices come from some magical brain function, Dd?